HRTO 2015

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines despite receiving it by mail and email.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and creed under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, such as a conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant's union had filed a grievance alleging workplace assault, harassment, and bullying based on the same events.

The Tribunal found that the central issues would be addressed in the grievance process and that concurrent proceedings could lead to conflicting factual conclusions.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under Rule 14.1 to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his short and long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 under the collective agreement.

The application was filed approximately 10.5 months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for the conclusion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal held that waiting for another proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of reprisal after receiving a parking ticket for having a boat trailer in his driveway overnight.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the respondent's actions to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code or explain how it amounted to a reprisal.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against the respondent, an employee of the federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the matter falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the relationship and the allegations pertained to the respondent's duties as a federal employee, placing the matter exclusively within federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship after being removed from a project and replaced with an American employee.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the civil claim did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil claim due to significant factual overlap and the risk of inconsistent findings.

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

Both parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant subsequently failed to provide available dates or respond to Tribunal correspondence.

After being warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant still did not reply.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence and other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions largely repeated arguments made at the summary hearing and that the additional details provided were available to him at that time.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to all parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged that photocopier emissions triggered her asthma and environmental sensitivities, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had previously denied her claim, finding no causal link between the emissions and her medical condition.

The Tribunal found that the factual issues regarding the cause of the applicant's medical conditions were central to both proceedings.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed a second request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of appeals at the WSIB.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the WSIB proceedings had concluded and ordered the application to be reactivated, directing the respondents to file their responses within 35 days.

The applicant alleged that court staff provided discriminatory service based on gender identity, gender expression, family status, and marital status by refusing to accept his motion materials in a custody dispute.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based solely on subjective perception without factual foundation, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application alleging sex and gender identity discrimination.

The proposed amendments included additional allegations against employees, details regarding her transfer, and allegations of being forced to perform physically demanding tasks while pregnant.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments would unduly expand the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegations were related to the original grounds and that the respondent would not be prejudiced as it could file an amended response.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Special Diet Allowance under Ontario's social assistance system discriminates against him by failing to fund an allowance for his fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the complaint had a reasonable prospect of success.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that the complainant could not establish that there is a general recognition in the Ontario medical community that modifications to a regular healthy diet should be made for fibromyalgia.

The complaint was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal and the Commission attempted to contact the complainant, but correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

As the complainant failed to update her address or contact the Tribunal, the complaint was dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The complainant passed away, and correspondence sent to her last known address was returned.

As no representative of the complainant's estate contacted the Tribunal, the complaint was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed seven related applications.

Two applications against the Tribunal and a Vice-Chair were dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

For the remaining five applications, the Tribunal noted the applicant's narrative contained discourteous language violating Rule 1.12.1 and appeared to be an abuse of process and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions responding to the jurisdictional and abuse of process issues, failing which the applications would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding.

The applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request re-activation following the WSIB decision, filing his request approximately five months late.

Although the applicant cited his mother's terminal illness and subsequent estate issues as reasons for the delay, he admitted he had not thought about the application until contacted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found it was not appropriate to extend the deadline and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) regarding the production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the CAD was an interlocutory order and not a final decision that disposed of any central issues in the application, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1.