HRTO 2015

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

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

The applicant failed to comply with these directions by the deadline and failed to respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought to amend his human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal, claiming the corporate respondent filed his application in proceedings against him under the Police Services Act.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents and that notice be given to the Toronto Police Service.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application, finding further evidence was needed to determine if the conduct constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondents at this stage and found no need to give notice to the Toronto Police Service.

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 a subsequent warning letter.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

At the hearing, the parties engaged in mediation/adjudication and reached a settlement with the organizational respondent.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, dismissed the application against the individual respondents, and noted a closing letter would be issued regarding the organizational respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because the respondent assigned her a caseworker who had allegedly stolen money from her father in the past.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction, as there was no connection to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after her union required medical documentation to exempt her from picket duties and subsequently disciplined her for attending work during a strike.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the medical documentation the applicant relied upon did not support her requested exemption, and her decision to attend work was a personal choice unrelated to her disability.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against different respondents.

The Tribunal proposed consolidating the applications and directed parties to file submissions if they objected.

The respondents and a proposed intervenor requested copies of the applications in the other file to make informed submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the distribution of the requested materials, restricted their use to making submissions on consolidation, and extended the deadline for those submissions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for unspecified 'personal reasons' more than 14 days after the Notice of Summary Hearing was issued.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the vague statement of personal reasons did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to anonymize an interim decision that had been published on and subsequently posted by a third-party website.

The request was made 19 months after the parties had settled the matter and the Tribunal had administratively closed the file.

The Tribunal held that it lacked adjudicative jurisdiction to grant the request, as the principle of functus officio applies once an application is finally disposed of, whether by final decision or administrative closure following a settlement.

The request to anonymize the interim decision was denied, but the Tribunal granted the request to anonymize the parties' names in the current decision.

The applicant filed requests for orders to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal and to compel the respondent to produce internal communications regarding her medical conditions and resignation.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it was supported by the existing factual allegations and would not prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal partially granted the production request, narrowing its scope to communications between specific managers during the relevant time period leading up to the applicant's resignation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

Neither party complied with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the materials to be filed and warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file the materials or contact the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

After the Ontario Human Rights Commission ceased assisting the complainant with several unresolved conditions, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the complainant to indicate if she intended to pursue the claims herself.

The complainant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims as abandoned.

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

The application was initially deferred pending a related WSIB proceeding.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay in reactivation after the WSIB allowed the claim.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding was not fully completed due to an ongoing psychological assessment and that related criminal proceedings against the alleged harasser were also relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the WSIB assessment.

The proposed intervenor, Justice for Children and Youth, filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination with respect to educational services.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to intervene, finding that the applicant was already represented by counsel, the allegations involved direct interactions rather than systemic issues, and the issues raised fell squarely within the Tribunal's expertise.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against Kathleen Wynne, Glenn Murray, and Melisa Arias Montes.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding Wynne and Murray.

Finding no specific acts of discrimination alleged against them, the Tribunal dismissed the application against Wynne and Murray for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to clarify the identity of the remaining respondent and provide an address within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the application and jointly requested a consent order.

The Tribunal issued a consent order withdrawing the application against the individual respondents and closed the file.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the Law School Admission Council.

He sought to introduce a new letter from his psychologist to prove he had submitted a comprehensive achievement battery as part of his accommodation request for the LSAT.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could reasonably have been obtained prior to the original hearing and that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

At the commencement of the hearing, it became evident that the respondent had not received the applicant's further written submissions, which argued the release should be set aside due to misrepresentation and the applicant's disabilities.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing to provide the respondent an opportunity to prepare a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, leading to his termination.

The application was deferred pending WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) found the applicant was capable of full-time work and that his termination was due to a safety violation, not his disability.

The applicant appealed to the WSIAT but abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the ARO had appropriately dealt with the substance of the accommodation issue, and that pursuing the termination issue at the Tribunal after abandoning the WSIAT appeal was an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had 11 active union grievances dealing with substantially the same facts and human rights issues, including sick leave, accommodation of doctor's notes, and workplace harassment.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.