HRTO 2015

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of previous interim decisions and sought the removal of the assigned adjudicator on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator found that the previous decisions were not final and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

The adjudicator also found no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias, clarifying that the applicant's original application did not properly allege reprisal in relation to all allegations.

The adjudicator denied the request for removal and issued further case management directions for the upcoming hearing.

The respondent requested that the previously deferred human rights applications be reactivated and set down for a summary hearing to be dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal treated the request as a request for reconsideration of its earlier interim decision deferring the applications pending a related civil action.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, ordering that the applications remain deferred until the civil proceeding concludes, and directed the respondent to cease emailing the applicants and comply with rules regarding courteous communication.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an outstanding grievance filed by her union.

The respondents opposed the reactivation because the grievance process had not concluded and an arbitrator was being sought.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, holding that it was inappropriate to do so while the grievance was still pending, and noted that the applicant could withdraw her grievance if she believed there was no basis for it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging age discrimination after the respondent did not offer him a Senior Tool Designer position.

He brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an interim remedy to compel the respondent to immediately hire him for the reposted position.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour granting such an intrusive measure, as it would create a new state of affairs rather than preserve an existing one, and would require the Tribunal to assess his qualifications without having heard the merits of the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the City of Windsor Employment and Social Services, and the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the Social Benefits Tribunal on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

Finding that the allegations related to the execution of adjudicative duties and decision-making, the Tribunal dismissed the application as against the Social Benefits Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents, witness lists, and witness statements in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the initial deadline and a subsequent deadline set by an Interim Decision, which warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of perceived mental health disability after a physician refused to order an MRI for her.

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

The Tribunal found that the Consent and Capacity Board had already determined the applicant had an actual mental health disability, a finding she could not reasonably challenge before the Tribunal.

Because her entire case rested on the assertion that she did not have a mental health disability, the application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled two-day hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued he relied on incorrect advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and was busy with school and family matters.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the correct deadline six weeks before it expired but failed to act diligently.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant had filed three grievances through his union alleging unjust suspension, harassment, discrimination, and unjust termination, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant objected to the deferral due to the union's alleged delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap between the application and the grievances, and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing after missing deadlines for filing hearing documents, citing a recent loss of representation and mental health issues.

The respondent objected, arguing prejudice and noting the applicant had ample time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant's desire for representation and unsupported claims of medical issues did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

The respondent's president subsequently advised the Tribunal that the respondent had made an assignment into bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that proceedings seeking monetary remedies are subject to the stay of proceedings under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide proof of bankruptcy, upon which the application would be stayed, and directed the applicant to advise whether he intends to bring a motion in court to lift the stay.

During a hearing, the respondents raised concerns that the applicant's paralegal representative had a conflict of interest because he and the applicant resided together as roommates.

The respondents requested the representative be disqualified, arguing there was a risk of inappropriate communication during an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the concerns entirely speculative and noting that the risk of inappropriate communication was not materially greater than between any client and their legal representative.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging breach of settlement and reprisal.

The applicant raised six issues, including allegations that the respondent failed to adopt a consultant's policy, failed to expunge references in board minutes, and engaged in reprisal by suspending and expelling her husband.

The Tribunal found no error in the original adjudicator's findings, noting that the settlement did not obligate the respondent to adopt the consultant's suggestions and that the first reprisal allegation was barred by section 34(11) of the Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment over two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant claimed he had originally filed within the one-year limitation period and that the Tribunal lost his application, but provided no evidence of this prior filing or correspondence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for failure to attend a summary hearing.

He argued that he missed the teleconference hearing because he assumed the scheduled time was in Pacific Standard Time, as he was living in British Columbia.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not advised the Tribunal of his move, the Notice of Hearing provided a local Toronto area code, and it was unreasonable to assume the hearing was in PST without seeking clarification.

The applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status against a Children's Aid Society and two of its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same underlying facts were the subject of an ongoing Family Court child protection proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objection that the personal respondents were no longer part of the court proceeding, the Tribunal found that the facts and the institutional respondent remained the same.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the outcome of the court proceeding.