HRTO 2015

The applicant failed to contact the Tribunal regarding his intentions with respect to the application, as directed in a previous Case Assessment Direction.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it accordingly.

The corporate respondent, Chrysler Canada Inc., brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove an individual respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the individual took a personal interest in her circumstances.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson, finding no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party since his actions were taken in the course of employment and there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed.

The applicant, who is Deaf, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her by not providing a sign language interpreter for an initial meeting.

The applicant argued there was new evidence, including the respondent's accessibility policy, and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence such as Eldridge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not determinative, and that the original decision was based on the specific facts of the case and did not conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to respond to a Tribunal direction because he was awaiting the outcome of a union grievance and settlement discussions regarding a transfer to a new department.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant made a personal choice to abandon the application and failed to establish any new facts or other criteria under Rule 26.5 that would justify reconsidering the dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several Beck taxis refused her service because she has a service animal.

She also named the Toronto Licensing Commission, the City of Toronto, and Municipal Licensing & Standards as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the municipal respondents, as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the municipal respondents, finding it plain and obvious that the application did not raise issues within its jurisdiction regarding them, and ordered the application to be served on the taxi company.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision in his favour, arguing that the awards for injury to dignity and lost income were too low.

The Tribunal denied the request to reconsider the award for injury to dignity, finding it was an attempt to reargue the case.

The Tribunal directed further submissions on the lost income calculation.

The respondent's request to stay the original order pending the reconsideration was denied, as there was no prospect of irreparable harm.

The applicant, a tenant with a hearing disability, alleged the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her by refusing to intervene in noise complaints or soundproof her unit.

Prior to this human rights application, the applicant filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) based on the same facts, which was resolved via a consent order terminating the tenancy.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the LTB proceeding and resulting consent order appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the issues were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondent's request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that not all issues were duplicated and that employer policy allowed concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings and deferred the application to avoid different conclusions about the facts, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant informed the Tribunal that she would not be attending the scheduled hearing.

As it is the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of her allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to attend.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application following a decision by an Employment Standards Officer.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but filed their own request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and directed that a half-day preliminary hearing be convened to address the respondents' dismissal request.

The applicant requested an amendment to a final decision to reflect the correct legal name of the corporate respondent, changing 'Impression Bridal Inc.' to 'Impression Bridal Ltd.' The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to its Rules and section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, noting the error was inadvertent and the respondent had participated in the hearing without raising the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple grievances based on the same facts, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it would prevent concurrent proceedings and the risk of contrary findings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceedings.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal requested that the respondents provide particulars regarding their allegations of her failure to perform essential duties, unauthorized absences, and customer complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the responses contained sufficient information for the applicant to reply, and that documentary disclosure obligations would be triggered if a Notice of Hearing is issued.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was delivered to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, providing a brief medical note stating she needed to be off work for medical reasons.

The respondents objected, noting a previous adjournment had been granted with a warning that future requests would require detailed medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide the required medical information or demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

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

The respondents filed a Response, a Request for Order During Proceeding, and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to these materials or to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

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

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a list of witnesses, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if she failed to comply, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

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

The applicant, whose Class M motorcycle licence was revoked due to a visual impairment, alleged discrimination because the regulatory waiver program available for Class G licences is not available for Class M licences.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that section 19 of O.Reg. 340/94 explicitly exempts the visual standards and waiver provisions from the Human Rights Code.

Following established precedent, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to look beyond the constitutionally sound exempting provision to examine the impugned regulation itself.

The application was dismissed.