HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, but did so outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued he misunderstood the limitation period and assumed his lawyer would file the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to act with due diligence, as he missed appointments with his lawyer and failed to provide instructions despite being advised of the time limit.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal directing them to advise of their intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been dealt with in an arbitration proceeding.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to deal with his reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the reprisal allegations were based on the same facts as the discrimination allegations and had been addressed, and that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue the case.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding goods, services, and facilities after being subjected to security screening, including lifting his pant leg, at a courthouse.

The applicant claimed the search was conducted because of his dishevelled appearance resulting from his invisible disabilities.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting the security measures to his disability.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a doctor as an individual respondent to her human rights application against a hospital.

The application alleged a failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the doctor's individual conduct was not a central issue and that adding him 17 months after the incident would cause significant prejudice.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Toronto Police Services, two Superior Court judges, and opposing counsel from previous civil proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications against the judges and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the judges on the basis of judicial immunity, as the allegations pertained to their judicial decision-making.

The application against opposing counsel was dismissed because there is no service relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to provide further submissions regarding the remaining allegations against the Toronto Police Services.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she could not participate due to family responsibilities and lack of means.

When the Tribunal scheduled a hearing, the applicant confirmed she did not intend to participate in the mediation or hearing process under any circumstances.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who requires a power wheelchair, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing it was barred by a prior settlement and release, and alternatively had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the release did not bar the application because the allegations concerned a conversation that occurred after the release was signed.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the allegations of demeaning treatment based on disability could constitute a Code infringement if proven.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents refused to accommodate him and allow his return to work.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to respond to the application.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and granted the respondents access to the file, restricting its use to advisors, instructors, and potential witnesses, and extended the time for filing a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, claiming he was terminated after complaining about racial profiling.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its usual practice to defer when a concurrent grievance proceeding is underway, while allowing the applicant to request reactivation if the grievance process is unduly delayed.

The applicant, an IT network administrator for the OPP, went on medical leave due to a mental disorder.

He alleged that his supervisor harassed him by demanding medical information on unreasonably short timelines and threatening to cut off his pay, and that the employer condoned this behaviour.

He also alleged reprisal and failure to accommodate his request to work remotely.

The Tribunal found that the supervisor's conduct amounted to harassment and the employer was liable for failing to address it.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal and failure to accommodate claims, finding no intent to reprise and that remote work would cause undue hardship given the essential duties of the applicant's position.

The Tribunal awarded $27,500 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was signed by her friend acting as her representative, without the required Form 27 authorization.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to either file a completed Form 27 or sign the application herself to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction or file the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant's husband filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing the human rights application as abandoned following the applicant's death.

The husband explained he mistakenly filed required information with an ombudservice instead of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the husband did not intend to abandon the application and granted the reconsideration request, ordering him to advise whether he has a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The applicants filed human rights applications against their property management company alleging discrimination in housing.

They brought requests for an order during proceedings to consolidate their applications, identify the landlord, add the company's president as an individual respondent, order production of work orders, and extend the time to file a reply.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the president as a respondent because there were no specific allegations against him and the corporate respondent assumed liability.

The request for production was denied as premature.

The Tribunal granted a 14-day extension to file a reply.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related grievances, and to amend it to include additional allegations of workplace harassment and reprisal.

The respondent opposed the requests on the basis of delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding the applicant acted promptly upon learning her grievances had been settled.

The Tribunal also permitted the amendments, concluding the new allegations formed a 'series of incidents' with the original claims and would not prejudice the respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application.

The request was filed three months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day deadline set out in Rule 26.1.

The applicant provided no justification for the delay, failing to establish it was incurred in good faith.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a record of offences, claiming the respondent refused to hire him due to an unpardoned federal criminal conviction.

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

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to pardoned federal offences or provincial offences.

As the applicant's conviction was federal and unpardoned, it was plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add an allegation that she was terminated on May 18, 2011.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely, lacked a reasonable prospect of success, and would cause prejudice by significantly broadening the scope of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that allowing it would prejudice the respondents and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating she was terminated on that date, as her employment ended as a consequence of an earlier decision to deny tenure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, arguing that the respondent's requirement to microchip her dog violated her religious beliefs.

The respondent had fined the applicant under the Provincial Offences Act for failing to microchip the dog.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the Provincial Offences Act proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and noting that the applicant could raise her religious concerns in the court proceeding.

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 by the deadline.

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