HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that its core business is federally regulated and therefore all its employees fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that because the respondent engages in extra-provincial transportation, its operations are a federal undertaking under section 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a Request For Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated telecommunications company.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is an inter-provincial, federally-regulated entity subject to federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested that his human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The respondent City supported the deferral, while the personal respondent opposed it.

The Tribunal found that there was an overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievances.

In accordance with its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following her termination and subsequent grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that judicial immunity applied to the arbitrator who chaired the arbitration panel and dismissed the application against him.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by conference call to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, for abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision denying him leave to proceed with nine applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant's arguments primarily consisted of disagreements with the previous decision and unfounded allegations of bias and evidence tampering.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment to include additional narrative details.

The respondents opposed the amendments and requested the removal of two directors as personal respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding they merely amplified the existing narrative without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents, noting their alleged individual conduct was central to the application and the corporate respondent had not assumed liability or demonstrated capacity to fulfill potential remedies.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding.

The request was filed within the 60-day period required by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and was unopposed by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant's request for assistance in obtaining investigation reports was found premature as document exchange had not yet occurred.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the applicant initially indicated a desire to pursue the matter but subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including requests for a mailing address, hearing dates, and confirmation of intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an order directing a third-party news organization, CTV London, to produce electronic documents, including a video of the alleged incident and the contact information of the customer who recorded it.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the material was not relevant.

The Tribunal found the video arguably relevant to the issue in dispute and ordered the third party to produce the requested materials, leaving ultimate admissibility to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent was negligent and caused an injury that aggravated a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

Finding that the allegations sounded in negligence rather than discrimination, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the termination of his employment.

Prior to this, his union had filed a grievance on his behalf, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer lacked just cause for dismissal and awarded severance and wages, but declined reinstatement.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had concurrent jurisdiction to decide human rights issues and that the legal issue decided was essentially the same as the one before the Tribunal.

Concluding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the same dispute, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's complaint to the College of Nurses of Ontario and a judicial review in an unrelated case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the College complaint was only at the investigation stage, did not address allegations of discrimination, and did not involve the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal also found that deferring for an unrelated judicial review would cause undue delay and was highly speculative.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to order production of a police policy manual chapter and declined to add allegations of torture and inhuman treatment regarding the denial of warm clothing while incarcerated.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the interim decision was not final and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Furthermore, the applicant presented no new facts, the respondent had already confirmed the policy manual's validity, and the clothing allegations had been previously dismissed at a summary hearing for lacking a connection to a prohibited ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent for lack of jurisdiction, as there were no allegations linking her actions to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the application against the corporate respondent was not plain and obviously outside its jurisdiction, but ordered a summary hearing to determine if it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent because the allegations were not linked to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the application against the corporate respondent was not plainly outside its jurisdiction, but ordered a summary hearing to determine if it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and did not set out a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a summary hearing and dismissed the respondent's request, directing that the matter proceed in the normal course.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability more than a year after her termination.

She argued the delay was due to psychological disabilities that impaired her ability to act.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish she was so debilitated that she could not pursue her legal rights, especially given she had pursued workers' compensation remedies and sought legal advice during the same period.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision that declared him a vexatious litigant and dismissed his applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to warrant reconsideration.

The applicant's request to correct alleged clerical errors was also denied, as the requested changes were substantive disagreements with the Tribunal's findings.

The request for reconsideration was denied.