HRTO 2016

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.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the individual respondent to have accepted all allegations against her and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The respondent hospital brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the grounds of discrimination relied upon by the applicant in his human rights application.

The Tribunal found that no order was necessary because the applicant had already responded to the request by indicating he was relying on the grounds of disability, threat of reprisal, and reprisal, and alleging a failure to accommodate and threats of termination related to sick time.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled summary and preliminary hearings, citing a recently scheduled medical appointment.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the absence of medical documentation indicating an inability to proceed and the long-standing notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant could have avoided the scheduling conflict and the hearing was scheduled to conclude before the medical appointment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent follow-up email.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Delivery of Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to a follow-up letter warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, based on comments made by a police officer during an interaction.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that there were differing versions of the facts and credibility issues that could not be resolved at a summary hearing.

Assuming the applicant's version of the facts to be true, the Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and declined to dismiss it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for abandonment after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own, as he could not open an email attachment with call-in instructions.

The Tribunal found the applicant had been mailed the notice to his provided address and failed to make appropriate inquiries about the email attachment.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents or dismiss the allegations against them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual conduct of the respondents was a central issue and that a remedy could potentially be ordered against them personally.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case, noting that the matter was not appropriate for a summary hearing.

The respondent requested detailed particulars regarding the applicant's allegations of discrimination during lease expense negotiations.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the pleadings were sufficient and the request resembled civil discovery.

The Tribunal found that most of the requested particulars could be answered after standard disclosure or during cross-examination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific particulars regarding the nature of its challenge to the Leasing Guidelines, the identity of comparator clinics, and the exact compensation sought.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent added conditions to her daycare license.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the applicant's related appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the application was filed first, it was unclear whether the LAT would consider the discrimination issues or offer appropriate remedies, and there was insufficient evidence of overlapping issues at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed and disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of harassment and her subsequent attempts to obtain accommodation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate was ongoing within one year of the application being filed, the Tribunal determined the application was timely and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application.

He alleged that the presiding adjudicator engaged in misconduct, including deception and fabrication of evidence, and that the hearing was unfair.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to disagreements with factual determinations and that he failed to provide evidence of procedural defects or establish any threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant requested and was granted an extension of time to respond, but failed to do so.

After a further direction from the Tribunal went unanswered, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved through a prior union grievance settlement that included a full release.

The applicant argued she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the settlement due to trauma from a workplace assault.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish incapacity and concluded the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of settlement by the respondents under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite being notified by the Tribunal of the consequences of not doing so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to deal with any further materials and oral submissions from the applicant.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars of the applicant's allegations.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application generally identified the who, what, when, and where of each alleged incident and was not lacking in particulars.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after being informed he failed a data entry test during the hiring process for a caseworker position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that key evidence regarding the test results was in the respondent's possession and could not be evaluated at the summary hearing stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and other grounds after the respondent denied his request to use space for a religiously based training program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a previous order to provide particulars and ordered him to do so immediately.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the respondent's bank statements and a list of founding members, finding them irrelevant to the application.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple extensions and warnings from the Tribunal.

The respondent claimed the matter had settled, but the applicant did not confirm the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is 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.