HRTO 2015

The applicant requested to reactivate their human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a coroner's inquest.

The coroner's inquest concluded and the jury rendered its verdict and recommendations.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by not offering suitable work after a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the completion of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

Finding a significant overlap in facts and issues between the two proceedings, and a real risk of inconsistent findings regarding the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

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

The organizational respondent had terminated the applicant's employment, and the applicant's union filed a grievance seeking damages for human rights breaches.

The union later withdrew the grievance, but the applicant appealed that decision.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the determination of the applicant's appeal to the union and the potential completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and accommodation based on disability.

The respondent argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success, was delayed, and dealt with matters already settled before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding increased scrutiny and termination following the disclosure of a disability required a full hearing to assess the evidence.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied, and the applicant was granted leave to amend the application.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to add the principals of the respondent organization as personal respondents, and to change the ground of discrimination from family status to sex (pregnancy).

The respondents consented to adding the personal respondents but objected to changing the grounds.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding that they did not substantially change the nature of the allegations or expand the scope of the issues to be determined.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging that an adjudicator discriminated against her on the basis of disability and gender identity during a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other adjudicative bodies due to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations related to decisions made by an adjudicator in the course of a hearing, which cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal.

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 was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested several interim orders, including permission to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter and a change of venue from London to Toronto as an accommodation for her post-traumatic stress.

The Tribunal granted the request for a court reporter, ordering the applicant to provide transcripts to all parties at her expense.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue request, noting it was made less than a week before the hearing and that other accommodations could be provided in London.

A request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision was also denied as premature.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of certain documents from the respondents, who objected on the basis that the documents contained personal health information.

The Tribunal held that the documents were arguably relevant to the proceeding and ordered their production, subject to the redaction of any information that would identify patients.

The Tribunal also addressed a request by the respondents for the production of materials from the applicant and a co-respondent, issuing directions for the filing of witness statements and notes by a specified deadline.

The applicant, who had a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after his employer declared him surplus following a workforce adjustment initiative.

The applicant refused to attend the hearing, requesting a decision based on written materials.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability did not entitle him to bypass surplus procedures and be placed directly into a permanent position.

The employer appropriately accommodated the applicant by deferring his surplus job search period while he was medically unable to participate.

The application was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal but did not present any new facts or evidence in her request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration and denied the request.

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 respond to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

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.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceeding and 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.

The applicant, a female electrician, alleged that she was denied a promotion to a supervisory position because of her sex and as a reprisal for previously complaining about gender-based harassment.

During the merits hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the successful male candidates had superior paper qualifications and that there was no evidence linking the hiring committee's decision to the applicant's sex or her prior harassment complaints.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employers, a hospital, the WSIB, and the WSIAT, relating to events following a 2008 workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations appeared to be out of time and barred by adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the employers and the hospital were filed more than one year after the last incident and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay.

The allegations against the WSIB and WSIAT were dismissed as they are protected by adjudicative immunity.

The application was dismissed.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

The request was filed two weeks before the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that granting intervenor status at such a late stage could prejudice the parties and delay the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant, a Personal Support Worker, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after her employment was terminated following an incident where a resident suffered a fractured femur during a transfer.

The applicant claimed she was falsely blamed for the incident in reprisal for a previous human rights application.

She also alleged failure to accommodate her knee disability when assigned to a floor requiring more walking.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success for the reprisal claim as the termination was based on independent investigation findings.

The Tribunal also found the floor assignment was consistent with a prior accommodation settlement and no updated medical restrictions were provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than two years after his dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his spouse's fear that filing the application would negatively impact his new employment.

The Tribunal found this explanation did not establish a reasonable basis to fear reprisal and therefore did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.