HRTO 2015

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that institutional delays at the WSIAT, estimated at 18 to 24 months, justified immediate reactivation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the significant overlap of issues remained and that reactivating the application would result in concurrent proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after his former landlord refused to return his last month's rent and called the police.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

In written submissions, the applicant claimed racial discrimination.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations had no connection to the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking early production of documents, to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General of Canada as respondents, and to raise constitutional questions.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the requests to add the proposed respondents, noting that the housing allegations were unrelated to the original application and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the federal government.

The parties were directed to prepare submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the stand-alone Charter issues raised by the applicant.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondent as a party, arguing the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for any proven discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue in the applicant's allegations of disability-based harassment and discrimination, making it inappropriate to remove him at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to education because of disability.

The respondent school board requested an order directing the applicant to consent to the disclosure of his Ontario Student Record (OSR) so that it could prepare its Response.

The applicant objected, arguing that disclosure at the pleading stage was premature and that respondent's counsel should not have access.

The Tribunal held that the OSR is essential to understanding the accommodation issues raised and that there is no principled reason to withhold consent at the Response stage.

The applicant was ordered to provide consent or face potential dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed three applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisals.

The Tribunal had previously declared the applicant a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications on a preliminary basis, finding it plain and obvious that there were no Code-related allegations against the respondents and that the applications were therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability and age brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all correspondence and emails between specific individuals over a two-year period.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal concluded the request was overbroad, not sufficiently particularized, and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the resolution of two grievances filed on her behalf regarding denied vacation and unjust discipline.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding no indication that the grievances were active, ongoing, or proceeding to arbitration, and therefore no risk of concurrent proceedings or inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 9, 2015, stating he had only recently contacted the Human Rights Legal Support Centre for representation.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had almost six months since the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to retain counsel and that failure to do so in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the age discrimination claim.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the ethnic origin claim, finding that the applicant's allegations of differential treatment compared to francophone drivers provided a reasonable prospect of success.

The matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed 13 of his applications and declared him a vexatious litigant.

He argued the Tribunal's procedure of scheduling the matters together was unfair and contrary to established practice, and that the Tribunal improperly adduced its own evidence regarding his litigation history.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no factual basis for the allegations of unfairness and noting the applicant failed to provide evidence that he personally experienced discrimination due to a disability-related impairment.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment due to reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged reprisal did not appear to stem from claiming or enforcing Code rights.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability while attending school.

She also filed a privacy complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding the disclosure of her personal health information.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the privacy complaint's resolution.

The Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate because the privacy complaint had little bearing on the human rights issue, and there was no risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his three consolidated human rights applications as an abuse of process.

The applicant submitted documents concerning police carding and a law firm newsletter discussing abuse of process under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the submitted documents were either irrelevant to the basis of the original dismissal or failed to establish any new determinative facts, conflict with established case law, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and receipt of public assistance after police responded to a call from his former landlord with guns drawn and placed him in handcuffs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

Upon review of the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application continue to be processed.

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

After failing to respond to the Tribunal's requests for hearing dates and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his application against the Crown based on prosecutorial immunity.

The applicant argued that the Crown Attorney perverted the course of justice due to a 'cover-up' of a police video.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disagreement with the finding was not a basis for reconsideration under Rule 26, as the Crown Attorney's involvement was brief and concluded with dropping the charges.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant and his representative failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines, despite it being re-issued.

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

The applicant, a cook, alleged discrimination on the basis of pregnancy after her hours were reduced and she was terminated shortly after disclosing her pregnancy.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in her termination, noting the timing of the reduction in hours and the lack of evidence from the respondent to explain the termination.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $5,880 for lost wages.