HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that workplace harassment led to his wife's suicide.

The application was filed approximately one and a half years after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for investigations by the police, the Ministry of Labour, and the employer to conclude.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal against his employer, a supervisor, and his union.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding family status accommodation and reprisal, finding the applicant had withdrawn from the accommodation process and provided no evidence of reprisal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, as there was no evidence its actions were discriminatory.

The allegation that the applicant was required to work outside his medical restrictions will proceed to a full hearing.

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

The applicant argued the grievance was placed in abeyance after she rejected a settlement offer.

The respondents and the union opposed reactivation, stating the grievance remained active and had not been concluded or formally held in abeyance.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis under Rule 14.4 to proceed as the grievance process had not concluded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the respondent school board had not discriminated against him and had met its procedural duty to accommodate by requesting an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and the Ontario Human Rights Commission's policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with jurisprudence or policy, and noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's weighing of evidence is not a valid ground for reconsideration.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release after his employment was terminated.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress due to financial and personal pressures.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's financial circumstances did not amount to coercion of the will, especially since he had negotiated an improved severance package before signing.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing a medical condition, and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking document production and an order prohibiting the respondent from using his information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the provided medical notes did not support the inability to attend.

The Tribunal also denied the RFOP, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents and the prohibition request had been addressed in a previous interim decision.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The respondents opposed the re-activation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) was not expected to be heard until at least June 2017, resulting in excessive delay.

Given the passage of time since the 2011 events and the uncertainty that the WSIAT would address the substance of the human rights allegations, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application re-activated.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled teleconference summary hearing.

The applicant submitted that she missed the call due to personal issues and an inability to find the call-in number.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that being busy or forgetting the call did not constitute compelling or extraordinary circumstances, nor did it meet the criteria for new facts or evidence under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a transgender student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and gender expression by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations relating to events outside the one-year limitation period be dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the untimely allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, which primarily involved interactions with other pupils and did not single out the applicant for differential treatment based on Code grounds, did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The untimely allegations were struck from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability against her former employer (the Ministry of the Attorney General) and the WSIB.

The application stemmed from a 2005 WSIB decision denying ongoing benefits for a workplace injury, which the applicant claimed failed to properly account for her pre-existing disabilities.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it essentially sought to appeal a WSIB benefits decision without any factual allegations of discriminatory treatment.

The Tribunal also found the application was filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the seven-year delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline, instead filing a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking preliminary dismissal for untimeliness.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has discretion to waive the requirement to file a Response when considering jurisdictional issues, the respondents had not requested such a waiver and there was no reason to grant one.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file a complete Response within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding a police stop.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has the flexibility to consider jurisdictional issues without a complete Response, a complete Response would assist in determining the timeliness issue in this case.

The respondents were ordered to file a complete Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the York Police Services Board based on race, creed, and other grounds.

The allegations arose from the applicant's attempts to secure custody of her son, who had been placed in her sister's custody by a court order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because she could not point to any evidence connecting the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested to remove the individual respondent as a party to an application alleging harassment and discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to keep the individual respondent.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her legal counsel was unavailable due to a prior commitment.

The counsel had not been formally on record, resulting in the Notice of Hearing being sent directly to the applicant.

The respondents consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances warranted an adjournment and granted the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy against a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as a party, arguing he only dealt with the applicant as an officer of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature because the corporate respondent had not accepted deemed or vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct.

The Tribunal added the corporate respondent as a party.

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

Prior to the preliminary hearing, the applicant requested early production of numerous documents, and his son requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce only documents related to the negotiation of a full and final release, finding the other requests premature.

The Tribunal denied the son's request to intervene, noting he appeared to be seeking applicant status and would not provide assistance beyond what the applicant could provide.

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the human rights application, alleging that the applicant abused the Tribunal's process by disclosing anonymized student data to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC).

The data had been produced by the respondents pursuant to a prior disclosure order.

The Tribunal held that disclosing the information to the OHRC, which has a statutory right to intervene in proceedings, did not breach the implied undertaking rule or the Tribunal's rules on document use.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application or exclude the evidence was denied, though a confidentiality order was issued to protect the raw data.