HRTO 2015

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions and a subsequent interim order to prepare and deliver witness statements and documents by the specified deadlines.

As the applicant did not file the required materials, the Tribunal concluded that the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability, had the ability to meet any remedy, and there were no specific allegations against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents from the application.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to provide an alternative address for service for the respondent.

The applicant explained that she relied on a counsellor who was unavailable during the response period, and she provided the required contact information.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, allowing the application to proceed, but warned the applicant to seek extensions in advance if unable to meet future deadlines.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents after the applicant failed to provide them.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond and comply with document disclosure rules, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay and abandonment.

The applicant argued he did not receive proper notice because his email was hacked and he was in the hospital.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant had received the respondent's response and the Tribunal's direction, had previously requested an extension to obtain counsel, and failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of email hacking or medical issues preventing his response.

The applicant sought to further defer her human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review of an arbitrator's award that upheld her denial of tenure and termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal should no longer defer and should determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and arbitration process was still ongoing due to the judicial review application and ordered the application deferred pending its completion.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by having an additional person take an online human rights course and due to irregularities in the test scores.

The Tribunal found no breach, noting an employer can ask any staff to take training and irregularities in the Commission's online course scoring did not evidence falsification.

The respondent requested the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant due to multiple applications filed by him and his spouse.

The Tribunal declined to make the declaration at this time, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being denied a department head position in favour of a younger candidate.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this stage and directed that the matter proceed to a full two-day hearing.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional facts regarding her termination of employment and interactions with Service Canada.

The respondents did not oppose the request but did not concede relevance.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting the lack of opposition and considering the nature, reasons, timing, and prejudice factors.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because a key witness would be out of province.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that witness unavailability due to travel is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested that his doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted this request, noting that the doctor's credibility was not a significant issue and the respondent did not object.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting an update on the other proceeding, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment and an extension of time to file her hearing documents, citing circumstances beyond her control.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the applicant provided no details constituting exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant was directed to file her documents by a specified date, failing which her application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a restricted temporary employee at The Beer Store, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed his hours were reduced to zero after he requested a brief accommodation for a minor soft tissue injury, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and co-workers.

He further alleged that a letter requiring him to clarify his availability for Sunday shifts was a reprisal for filing his human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the reduction in hours was due to the seasonal nature of the work and the applicant's low seniority status, not his accommodation request.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of harassment or that the respondent's request for clarification regarding Sunday availability was a reprisal.

The applicant requested an order permitting her to call her two physicians as witnesses by teleconference, citing the cost of having them attend in person in London from Burlington.

The respondents objected, arguing they needed the doctors to attend in person to fully respond and question them, and raised doubts about the family doctor's credentials.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that requiring in-person attendance would needlessly inconvenience the witnesses and that cross-examination could be effectively conducted over the phone.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for medical reasons, providing documentation that her condition had worsened and self-representation was unmanageable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical documentation established extraordinary circumstances justifying the request outside the standard 14-day period.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The applicant alleged that the adoptive parents of her biological children refused to communicate with her due to her disability, and that the respondent's worker relayed this discriminatory message.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had no control over the adoptive parents' wishes and that the applicant's questions regarding open adoption and access rights were matters for a court, not the Tribunal.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights allegations of harassment spanning July to November 2012, arguing they had been appropriately dealt with in a prior union grievance pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that unlike a previous grievance settlement in this matter, there were no signed Minutes of Settlement establishing the scope of the resolution, and the applicant's agreement to the withdrawal of the grievance was in dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, concluding that the issue could not be resolved without hearing evidence and making credibility findings.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an intervenor in a case challenging the constitutionality of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, requested an extension of time to file an expert report in reply to the respondent's expert report on labour relations.

The respondent and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the contents of the respondent's expert report could not have been fully anticipated and that procedural fairness favoured allowing the OHRC to provide rebuttal evidence regarding section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal concluded that the extension would not cause undue prejudice as the opposing parties would still have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending Employment Standards Act proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting confirmation of whether he wished to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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