HRTO 2015

The applicants filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement regarding age restrictions in condominium recreational facilities.

A security guard prevented the applicants' child from using the billiard room, contrary to the amended rules.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement and exacerbated the harm by failing to investigate the incident, ignoring the applicants' complaints, and blaming the applicants.

The Tribunal awarded the applicants $5,000 in general damages for the emotional impact and damage to their dignity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of another proceeding between the parties.

After the other proceeding concluded, the respondent requested the application be reactivated.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew, and the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal direction requiring her to indicate whether she intended to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the importance of dealing with applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and age, 21 months after his employment was terminated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed beyond the one-year time limit in s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2), as the applicant's severe depression and anxiety, which included a suicide attempt and hospitalization, significantly impaired his ability to file the application earlier.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to establish that it would suffer substantial prejudice from the delay.

The application was permitted to proceed, and the applicant was granted anonymization due to the highly sensitive medical information involved.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

Mail sent to the applicant was returned, and the applicant failed to respond to multiple emails from the Tribunal directing him to confirm his intention to proceed and provide a valid mailing address.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights complaint sought to amend his application to add two personal respondents and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The respondent opposed the amendments and brought its own request to allow a witness to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal denied the request to add personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to do so when the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the monetary remedy, noting the absence of prejudice.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's unopposed request for its witness to testify by teleconference from Australia due to financial hardship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending the resolution of a related criminal matter, and sought an extension of time to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to file an amended Response on consent and extended the deadlines for document exchange and witness statements.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the resolution of a WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and sex after being denied access to condominium records.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal added the condominium corporation as a respondent but declined to remove the board president as a personal respondent, noting that his individual conduct was at issue.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her ground of discrimination from gender identity to sex.

The request to add the property manager, property management company, and board vice-president was deferred pending further submissions.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate her disability, and reprisal by the respondent university.

After multiple scheduling accommodations, the applicant and her counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, advising they would rely solely on documentary evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the unilateral decision not to appear constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal further noted that even if the documentary evidence were accepted, it would be insufficient to prove the essential elements of the allegations without oral testimony.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a response requesting that the application be dismissed because another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a reply responding to the request to dismiss.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial notice and a follow-up letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants filed applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the applications appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicants failed to respond to the notices and a subsequent follow-up email.

The Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following her termination from employment.

The application was filed almost four years after the termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on the date of termination, and that the applicant's reliance on an ongoing union grievance did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged that the termination of his disability benefits at age 60 was discriminatory.

In his reconsideration request, he provided further evidence regarding his delay, arguing that he was waiting for the union grievance process to conclude and that he suffered a medical injury.

The Tribunal found that waiting for a grievance process does not constitute a good faith reason for delay and that the injury occurred after the limitation period had already expired.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it was an attempt to re-argue matters already decided.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions, despite multiple warnings and extensions of time.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal or file the required materials, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because it had recently retained counsel who was unavailable on the hearing date, and because a proposed witness was medically unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that retaining counsel late is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also held that the witness's unavailability did not require an adjournment, as her evidence could be heard at a later date or by teleconference if ruled admissible.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment resulting in disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the WSIB dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported the deferral, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and outcomes between the two proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services and employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and disability.

The applicant alleged that police officers targeted him with conducted energy weapons 'through the air' and monitored him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not point to any evidence establishing a link between the respondent's alleged actions and any protected ground under the Code.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars of the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal in housing.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient details regarding the alleged events, including who was involved, when they occurred, and where they happened.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars within a specified timeframe, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.