HRTO 2015

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, directing the applicant to respond.

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

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

The personal respondents requested to be removed as parties to a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had not assumed liability for the personal respondents' actions, nor indicated it would satisfy any remedy ordered against them.

Furthermore, the applicant made specific allegations regarding the conduct of both personal respondents that would not be adequately addressed if they were removed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found discrimination on the basis of disability but denied damages for loss of income.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by relying on his length of service and failing to apply out-of-province case law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the denial of wage loss was based on the applicant's work performance issues, which would have resulted in termination regardless of the discrimination.

The Tribunal also noted that it had properly considered and declined to follow the out-of-province cases.

The applicant failed to establish any criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, sex, and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because of an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant objected.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested the reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The applicant confirmed that the outstanding Landlord and Tenant Board applications were withdrawn.

The respondents did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and issued directions for further submissions regarding the removal of a respondent and the amendment of the application.

The respondent requested that two human rights applications be consolidated or heard together because they arose out of the same facts, dates, and grounds.

The applicants' litigation guardian consented to the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found a strong public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a contravention of a settlement.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misapplied factors in assessing general damages and improperly assessed the respondent's intention.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal against a Tribunal adjudicator who had previously dismissed his prior application for delay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the claim related to the execution of adjudicative duties.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the complaint was an attempt to challenge the content of the prior decision, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming incorrect payment of her salary while receiving workplace safety and insurance benefits.

A union grievance dealing with the same issues was pending before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application until the conclusion of the arbitration, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

The applicant, a security guard employed by Securitas at the National Gallery of Canada, alleged discrimination after his position was eliminated during a restructuring.

Both respondents requested dismissal on the basis that they are federal undertakings outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that Securitas' provision of security services at the Gallery did not fall within provincial jurisdiction, as the duties were ordinary security functions and not integral to a federal undertaking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the National Gallery, finding it to be a federal undertaking and noting it was not the applicant's employer.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code which was deferred on consent.

After inquiring about the status, the applicant was directed to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application.

The applicant failed to do so and failed to respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Social Benefits Tribunal and several individuals.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide addresses for five personal respondents in order to process the application against them.

The applicant failed to provide the addresses by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned as against those five individuals and dismissed the application against them.

The application against the remaining respondents will proceed to a summary hearing.

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

The respondent argued the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of her Record of Employment, timesheets, schedules, and emails.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the production of the ROE, timesheets, schedules, and specific emails between the applicant and a named individual.

The request for a general review of the applicant's email account was denied as a fishing expedition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was terminated in reprisal for being a union steward.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, raising jurisdictional concerns including timeliness and the absence of specific Code-related acts.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

Because the grievance raised the identical issues regarding the applicant's termination and the arbitrator had already issued a bottom-line decision reinstating the applicant, the Tribunal deferred the application until the arbitrator issues full reasons.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

A case management conference call was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual solicitation, gender identity, gender expression, and record of offences.

She claimed she was not provided with gender-appropriate sleeping accommodations at an out-of-town event and was subjected to harassment by co-workers.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was inconsistent.

The Tribunal preferred the respondents' evidence that the applicant left her post early and was informed her services were no longer required before the alleged incidents occurred.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same facts and issues.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request merely sought to reargue the case and disagreed with the original findings of fact and analysis.

As the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the request for reconsideration was denied.