HRTO 2015

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the completion of an ongoing grievance.

The applicant withdrew his grievance but failed to request reactivation of the application within 60 days as required by the Tribunal's rules.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry regarding the status of the grievance, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant, a student with multiple disabilities including learning disabilities, ADHD, and anxiety, alleged that the Toronto District School Board discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant sought funding for a private residential school placement with a focus on elite sports, arguing it was necessary for his accommodation.

The Tribunal found that while providing a residential school placement is outside the school board's legislated mandate, the board nevertheless failed to accommodate the applicant during his Grade 9 year by delaying or failing to provide available supports such as social work, attendance counselling, and alternative placement discussions.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied compensation for the private school tuition.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of disability discrimination in employment regarding events that occurred between March and June 2015.

The respondent did not file a response to the request but appeared to consent by responding to the additional allegations in its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application and noted the next step would be scheduling a two-day hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the production of documents, a witness list, and witness statements.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which had been previously deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding.

Following a decision by the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer, the applicant sought to reactivate the application.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondent requested continued deferral because both parties had appealed the WSIB decision to the WSIAT.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding that it would be premature to decide whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code while the WSIAT appeal, which involved similar issues, was ongoing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because her new counsel and she were unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing date had been set based on previously provided availability and that retaining new counsel shortly before a hearing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her on almost all Code grounds, claiming they led a mafia-related group that stalked, harassed, assaulted, and tortured her with laser beams.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction as they had no connection to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit and pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal consenting to the dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The application had been deferred pending an appeal at the Court of Appeal, but the applicant failed to request re-activation within 60 days of the appeal's conclusion.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant argued that third parties failed to assist him with legal documents and challenged the original deferral decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already addressed and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against an organizational respondent and a personal respondent.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, to which the applicant consented.

Applying the Persaud criteria, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent was acting in her capacity as an employee of the corporate respondent and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed as a party.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order for the production of documents relating to a workplace investigation and assessments of racism and discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to determining whether the specific terms of the settlement—which involved protecting the applicant's reputation, amending a T4, and releasing personal documents—had been breached.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant was dismissed for cause and had signed a Full and Final Release.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request and a subsequent Tribunal direction to file a response.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts because of sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration raising identical issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing a Tribunal decision would have broader application.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because their representative had to take over another case due to a colleague's sudden illness.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden illness constituted extraordinary circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and sought to add her union as a respondent.

The application was filed nearly four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The applicant argued her delay was due to her disability and the effects of medication.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that she was practically prevented from filing in a timely way, noting her active participation in a grievance arbitration during the same period.

The Tribunal also declined to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual basis to infer discrimination in its representation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing to allow more time for settlement discussions and because her newly retained representative was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that neither the desire to continue settlement discussions nor the late retention of a representative constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent police service refused to take his criminal complaints as part of a conspiracy to protect a hate group.

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

Finding that the applicant's allegations were bald assertions and entirely speculative, with no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the third day of the hearing on the merits.

The respondents and intervenor attended and requested that the application be dismissed with costs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend, deeming the application abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted it has no statutory authority to award costs, but suggested the respondents could bill the applicant and raise the issue if the applicant seeks reconsideration.

The applicant, a man with a severe intellectual disability, filed a human rights application alleging that the regulatory cap on nursing services discriminated against him by denying funding for a medically necessary fifth daily catheterization.

After the application was filed, the regulation was amended to increase the cap, meeting the applicant's current needs.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for mootness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a live controversy remained regarding the period the applicant was subject to the old cap and any potential remedies.

However, the Tribunal held that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the amended regulation, as he was no longer adversely affected by it and could not bring a public interest application on behalf of others.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application summarily on the basis that damages might not be available, finding such a determination premature.

The applicant, a transsexual male seeking to have his government-issued identity documents reflect his gender identity without reference to his birth-assigned gender, alleged discrimination in services based on gender identity and expression.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties jointly requested an eight-month adjournment to engage in community consultations and attempt to resolve the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the broad-reaching implications of the public interest remedy sought.