HRTO 2015

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

A hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2015.

Neither party attended the hearing nor communicated with the Tribunal to explain their absence.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because she had recently retained counsel who had a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had previously agreed to the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondents from an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and granted the request, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, the employees were acting within the scope of their duties, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The applicant, a former sous chef, attended her former workplace to collect unpaid wages.

When she complained to the restaurant owner that she had not been paid in full, the owner yelled gender-based obscenities at her.

The Tribunal found that the owner's conduct constituted sexual harassment contrary to section 7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

As the owner was a directing mind of the restaurant, the corporate respondent was also held liable.

The respondents, who did not attend the hearing, were ordered to pay $1,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment, claiming the respondent's owner made rude and humiliating remarks.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

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

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application.

He sought to add allegations of Occupational Health and Safety Act violations, text messages, and to increase his claim for monetary compensation to $60,000.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the new allegations due to insufficient information on how they constituted discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment to increase the monetary claim, finding no prejudice to the respondents as hearing dates had not yet been set.

The applicant and respondent both filed Requests for Order During Proceeding in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant sought to amend the Application to include further job competitions, which the Tribunal denied because the proposed amendments were unclear and the request was made too close to the scheduled hearing date.

The respondent sought to dismiss an allegation relating to a 2008 job competition on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding the allegation was filed well outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and the applicant provided no explanation to justify waiving the delay.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against him based on his sex by refusing to lay domestic assault charges against his ex-girlfriend.

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's claim was based on mere speculation and lacked any evidentiary basis linking the police's decision to his gender.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to add further particulars regarding an alleged reprisal.

The respondents did not oppose the request, provided no costs were ordered against them.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Aubin and granted the amendment, noting it was sought at an early stage and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also confirmed it has no jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, colour, place of origin, and race.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for being untimely or having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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 failed to file a Form 10 Request for Order as directed.

The Tribunal subsequently emailed the applicant requiring a response regarding her intentions with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes, but the applicant did not appear and provided no explanation.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondents filed a Response and a Request to Defer.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal and deferral issues, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple directions, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After the Tribunal inquired about the status of the grievance, the union advised that the parties had entered into minutes of settlement resolving all disputes, including the Tribunal application.

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

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Waterloo Region Police Services, the Children's Aid Society, and several individuals.

The respondents filed a Request to Dismiss and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to respond to the respondents' requests and to confirm her contact information.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicants filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an order requiring the respondents to deliver all arguably relevant documents in their possession as required by Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondents failed to respond to the Request.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately deliver the documents, noting that the consequences of their failure to comply with the Rules may be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of a disability, specifically electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

He claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his disability by reducing electromagnetic fields from underground electrical cables.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant might be able to establish EHS as a disability, there was no reasonable prospect he could prove a link between his symptoms and the respondent's underground cables, given the lack of expert medical or scientific evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the basis that neither party had complied with their disclosure obligations, as the respondent believed a prior request for a summary hearing would dispose of the application.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondent's belief regarding the summary hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a language instructor, discriminated against him in the provision of services on the basis of citizenship and age.

The respondent's employer requested intervenor status in the application.

The Tribunal applied the factors for intervention under Rule 11 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and granted the request, finding that the employer had a significant interest in the proceeding because the alleged discrimination related to educational services provided as part of its program.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is an inter-provincial transportation company and therefore federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is engaged in inter-provincial trucking, which falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.