HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation.

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal discovered the applicant had initiated a counter-claim in a civil defamation action commenced by the respondent, seeking damages for the same alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars duplicate proceedings for the same alleged Code infringement.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of disability requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant sought the adjournment on the basis that she required further documentary disclosure from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing had been scheduled for nearly four months, the applicant had not made a formal request for production of documents, and the issue of production could be dealt with without delaying the hearing.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

Neither party complied.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application to include additional allegations, address his recent termination, amend requested remedies, and add the respondent's Chief Operating Officer (COO) as a personal respondent.

The respondent consented to the amendments regarding allegations and remedies but objected to adding the COO.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the allegations and remedies, finding no prejudice given the early stage of proceedings.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the COO as a personal respondent, noting that the corporate respondent admitted vicarious liability for the COO's actions and there was no compelling reason to add him personally.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

Neither party attended the scheduled hearing or contacted the Tribunal to explain their absence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

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

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 other proceeding concluded, the applicant was directed to file a Request for Order but failed to do so.

Despite multiple follow-up communications and warnings from the Tribunal, the applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant, a bus operator, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the respondent, OC Transpo.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated undertaking and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it plain and obvious that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the other proceeding and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence and follow-up email.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction requiring him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a transsexual male, filed an application alleging discrimination regarding government-issued identification.

He requested an order to anonymize his identity by using his initials, arguing that identifying him would expose his sex assigned at birth and undermine the purpose of the application.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's privacy interest outweighed the principle of open proceedings, as public disclosure would necessarily reveal his sex assigned at birth.

The applicant, who has autism, was denied access to the respondent restaurant because she was accompanied by her service dog.

The Tribunal found that the applicant is a person with a disability and that her dog is a service dog under the applicable regulations.

The denial of service constituted discrimination under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to develop and implement a human rights policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The application was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

After the ESA proceeding concluded, the applicant was instructed to file a Request to reactivate the application using Form 10.

The applicant failed to submit the required documents despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory detention and vehicle search by police.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending a judicial review in a separate case regarding the Tribunal's power to dismiss applications under s. 45.1 of the Code when a Police Services Act complaint has been filed.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, consistent with its previous decisions.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a publication ban, finding no basis for such an extraordinary order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The organizational respondent, Target Canada, was granted protection from its creditors under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which included a stay of proceedings.

The applicant indicated she wished to proceed with her application but did not intend to take steps to lift the court-ordered stay.

The Tribunal held that it was bound by the Superior Court order and deferred the application until the stay period ended or was lifted.

The parties jointly requested an order to anonymize the names of the applicant and the individual respondent in the Tribunal's decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the previously released interim decisions contained highly sensitive information about the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal balanced the public interest in open justice against the sensitive nature of the information and the small size of the academic program at issue.

The matter having been resolved, the Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal placed the matter in abeyance pending judicial review of a related application.

After the related application was resolved, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to explain why the current application should proceed, failing which it would be dismissed as abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a six-month deferral of his human rights application due to medical reasons, supported by a letter from his treating physician.

The respondent opposed, noting previous extensions and requesting clearer medical evidence regarding the applicant's prognosis.

The Tribunal granted the six-month deferral but ordered that any future deferral requests must be accompanied by medical evidence explaining the inability to proceed and providing an opinion on when the applicant will be medically able to participate.

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.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the required deadline.

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