HRTO 2015

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for the production of the applicant's employment file from a third-party employment agency.

The third party and the applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the third party to produce the portion of the file relating to the applicant's assignment with the respondent, finding a request for the entire file overly broad at this stage.

The Tribunal also extended the deadlines for the parties to exchange documents and witness lists.

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

The respondent requested deferral pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal initially deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer issued a decision.

The respondent subsequently sought to dismiss the application because the applicant did not request reactivation within 60 days of the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, noting the applicant had appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and instead continued the deferral pending the outcome of that appeal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant argued that the SBT committed discriminatory acts by applying discriminatory legislation and sending her back to her country of origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any compelling and extraordinary circumstances or meet the criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that she was denied employment opportunities in the provincial government as a reprisal for a 2002 human rights complaint she had filed against the Ontario Securities Commission.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's theory of a wide-ranging government conspiracy was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that many of the events were untimely.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Response and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent care home restricted his visits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the alleged unfairness to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence inquiring whether he intended to proceed with the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal by her employer and union.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the union's alleged inaction to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal allegation against the employer to proceed, finding that if the applicant could prove her workload was unfairly increased after she filed previous human rights complaints, an inference of reprisal could be drawn.

The applicant failed to file hearing documents as directed by a Case Assessment Direction, had no contact with the Tribunal following a case management conference, and failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

After waiting thirty minutes for the applicant to appear, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

Although the original grievance was settled, the intervenor union had filed another grievance on the applicant's behalf regarding an unpaid suspension.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings continued to overlap significantly and the arbitration was already well advanced.

The request to reactivate the application was denied and the deferral was continued.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim because the alleged retaliation was for assisting a co-worker with employment insurance and filing a WSIB claim, neither of which involved asserting rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of various documents, including other employees' files and the respondent's entire policy book, finding the requests overly broad and lacking arguable relevance.

Finally, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's complaint about the applicant's uncivil language in her submissions, accepting the self-represented applicant's apology and reminding her of the obligation to act courteously.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional remedies, including general damages and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments related only to the relief sought, were reasonably connected to the original allegations, and would not prejudice the respondent or unduly prolong the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination after a workplace dispute with his supervisor, which led to a drug and alcohol test and a temporary suspension.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information, the applicant failed to establish any connection between the employer's actions and a Code ground or an attempt to enforce his rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the request provided no details to help understand the basis for disagreement or to determine if there was any basis to reconsider the decision.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 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 and a subsequent follow-up email.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file pre-hearing disclosure documents and warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The respondent and its counsel attended the hearing.

Noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and the resources expended by the respondent and the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging that a municipal zoning by-law discriminated against them on the basis of disability and age by threatening the operation of an adult day care business.

The parties requested that the two applications be consolidated, which the Tribunal granted given the common factual and legal issues.

The respondent also requested that the applications be deferred pending the outcome of an application to amend the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the amendment process would not address the monetary and public interest remedies sought, nor would it determine whether the by-law violated the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her son, alleging that Squash Ontario discriminated against him on the basis of age by setting an 'under age 22' limit for the Quest for Gold provincial funding program.

The applicant also alleged that Squash Ontario reprised against her son by requiring him to sign a liability waiver to renew his membership and by assigning him a lower ranking after his membership lapsed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the age limit did not perpetuate prejudice or stereotyping and was reasonably connected to the program's focus on junior athletes.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of retaliatory intent regarding the liability waiver or the ranking process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include additional facts and to add his union as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend because the applicant failed to provide sufficient details about the dates of the newly alleged incidents, preventing an assessment of prejudice or timeliness.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding that the applicant failed to identify any events or factual foundation that could support a finding that the union violated his rights under the Human Rights Code.