HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal later notified the applicant that the respondent was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings and directed the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed.

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

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

The applicant, who has a mobility impairment, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer.

She claimed the employer failed to accommodate her needs by providing insufficient taxi chits and denying remote computer access, and that the manner of her termination was discriminatory.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to communicate a disability-related need for additional taxi chits or remote computer access, and that the employer had reasonably responded to her requests.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination process disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of her disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming he was denied a full pension due to a work-related injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the facts giving rise to his claim more than a year before filing the application.

As a lack of knowledge of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, the application was dismissed as untimely.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and subsequent communications from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, seeking to have her name anonymized because its publication might negatively affect her employment prospects.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was filed out of time without a reasonable explanation, constituted an impermissible second request for reconsideration of the same decision, failed to identify a valid basis for reconsideration under the Rules, and did not establish the exceptional circumstances required for anonymization.

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

After indicating an intention to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to file a formal withdrawal form or respond to the Tribunal's correspondence requesting confirmation of his intent to proceed or participate in mediation.

As the deadline passed without any communication from the applicant, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application after a summary hearing.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, arguing the application was an abuse of process and seeking costs, noting the time and resources spent responding.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, finding insufficient basis to refuse the request.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to award costs and that abuse of process arguments could be raised if the applicant attempts to re-file.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the corporate respondent was a federally-regulated bank.

Following the dismissal, the Canadian Human Rights Commission declined to deal with her analogous complaint, finding the respondent was not a federally-regulated bank.

The respondents did not oppose the reconsideration request and abandoned their jurisdictional objection.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, set aside its previous decision, and found the application to be within its jurisdiction, allowing the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the apprehension of his child by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had subsequently been made a Crown ward by a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the issues associated with the apprehension and wardship were central to the court judgment, and permitting the human rights application to proceed would be tantamount to an appeal of that judgment.

The application was dismissed as having been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration three and a half years after the Tribunal dismissed his application, well beyond the 30-day time limit.

He argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to physical and mental health issues.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence provided was insufficient to establish that his health conditions were so debilitating as to prevent him from pursuing his legal rights, particularly for the period between January 2012 and October 2014.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the Ministry's hearing acuity test for police constables discriminatory but dismissed other allegations against the Toronto Police Services.

The applicant raised issues regarding procedural fairness, new evidence of alleged bribery, and the liability of the TPS.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness, that the new evidence was not determinative or relevant, and that the applicant was attempting to reargue issues already decided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant failed to file a request to proceed within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.4.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

As the applicant did not respond or request to proceed, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to attend the resumed summary hearing by conference call.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application against the organizational and individually named respondents.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Case Manager's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only addressed the applicant's temporary compensable injury and did not deal with the central issue of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's permanent restrictions and discriminatorily terminated his employment for frustration of contract.

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

Both parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to provide available dates or otherwise contact the Tribunal.

After the applicant failed to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because an outstanding grievance regarding the termination had been referred to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the union would not raise a breach of the Human Rights Code at arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending union grievance proceedings.

After withdrawing her grievance, the applicant indicated a desire to proceed but failed to file the required Request for an Order During Proceedings.

Despite multiple communications and warnings from the Tribunal, the applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant's association, COTAPSA Inc., filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent raised concerns about the association's role.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, noting its established practice of granting intervenor status to an applicant's bargaining agent in employment discrimination cases absent exceptional circumstances.

The 15-year-old applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment after being unable to apply for a job that required enrollment in full-time post-secondary education.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction, as section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, and the applicant did not raise a Charter challenge to this definition.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, claiming that 'no trespass' orders issued by the respondent school boards infringed his right to attend candidates meetings and school board meetings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or explain how the respondents' behaviour constituted reprisal.

The applicant's subsequent submissions failed to link the allegations to a Code ground or explain the reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were not grounded in the Code and did not support a claim of reprisal, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.