HRTO 2015

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on pregnancy.

The respondent filed an incomplete response through an unnamed representative who failed to provide a Law Society of Upper Canada registration number.

After the respondent and representative failed to reply to Tribunal correspondence, the Tribunal ruled that the respondent would be bound by the incomplete information submitted, and the representative would not be permitted to act without proof of LSUC registration or exemption.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant attended by teleconference instead of in person.

After a brief recess to consider the respondent's motion to dismiss for abandonment, the applicant failed to reconnect to the call and could not be reached.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

They requested an interim remedy, alleging the respondent was threatening to evict them.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was not supported by signed declarations as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and the respondent established that no eviction had been threatened or initiated.

The applicants also failed to demonstrate that an interim remedy was necessary to ensure an effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

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

A continuation of a summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant's litigation guardian failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over her 2012 grievance.

The Tribunal found an overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the 2014 grievances, which specifically alleged a failure to accommodate under the Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the applicant could reactivate it if her human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed a request to have C.W. named as litigation guardian, which was permitted under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant also requested to remove 15 individually named respondents and add the organizational respondent, C.C.S.S., in their place.

With the consent of the individual respondents and no opposition from the proposed organizational respondent, the Tribunal granted the request.

The Tribunal also temporarily anonymized the parties' names pending a final ruling on the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, an interprovincial cash-in-transit business.

The organizational respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its business is federally regulated.

The applicant conceded that the issues were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, gender identity, and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file pre-hearing disclosures.

The respondents complied, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The union, OECTA, was granted intervenor status and sought to participate in the merits phase of the hearing to protect its reputation against allegations of collusion, despite taking no position on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to call evidence and cross-examine during the merits phase, finding it would likely cause delay and disruption and that the union's participation would not assist in determining the merits.

The union's participation was limited to the remedy phase.

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.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because she had filed a civil action seeking remedies for the same facts and issues.

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator who dismissed the case was biased.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to set out facts supporting a finding of bias and that her assertion was merely an expression of dissatisfaction with a result mandated by the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and subsequently commenced a civil action for breach of contract and negligence, which included an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action was largely framed in tort and contract and did not seek relief for the same Code violations.

However, to avoid inconsistent findings due to overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the civil action is resolved.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to cease and desist public disclosure of documents provided for the sole purpose of litigation.

The applicant had disclosed documents and sent emails to community members regarding the litigation.

The Tribunal found the applicant in breach of Rule 3.3, which prohibits the use of disclosed documents for any purpose other than the proceeding.

The applicant was ordered to comply with Rule 3.3 and the respondent was ordered to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before proceeding.

As the applicant did not appear and there was no further communication, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a former bookkeeper and manager at a dental practice, alleged that her employer sexually harassed her on multiple occasions and terminated her employment because she refused his sexual advances.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an extremely hostile and evasive witness who attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding her damages claim.

Conversely, the respondent was found to be forthright and credible.

Due to the lack of independent evidence and the applicant's poor credibility, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations of sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

The applicants, a father acting as litigation guardian for his two minor sons and on behalf of his adult son, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board regarding disciplinary measures.

The applicants requested to amend the application to add further allegations and new respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add allegations but deferred adding the new respondents.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

In a human rights application against a university, the parties filed several Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documents relating to his other post-secondary education pursuits, finding them arguably relevant to the university's defence regarding his ability to achieve academic success.

The Tribunal deferred the university's request to dismiss allegations regarding application fees and the applicant's request to compel all admissions committee members to testify until after the applicant's evidence is heard.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant claimed that a protracted internal workplace investigation exacerbated his mental health, which delayed his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation supporting his claim that his mental health prevented him from filing on time.

Furthermore, pursuing an internal complaint does not justify a delay under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his former employer, Chrysler, and his union, Unifor.

Chrysler terminated the applicant's employment following an investigation into workplace drugs, and the union subsequently withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application against Chrysler was untimely and if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against Chrysler was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested to participate in her upcoming human rights hearing by teleconference, citing her recent move to British Columbia, a new job, and financial constraints.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that credibility was a significant issue and that cross-examination would be prejudiced by a teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the ordinary expectation is for parties to testify in person.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's presence was necessary to fairly assess credibility and to appropriately deal with the parties' documentary evidence, which included difficult-to-read documents and email exchanges.