HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination for the respondents' failure to provide an ASL interpreter during a meeting.

The application was filed more than one year after the incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination occurred on August 8, 2014, making the October 6, 2015 application late under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further found that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2), as his reasons, including emotional challenges, uncorroborated ADD, and involvement in other legal proceedings, were insufficient to excuse the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services board regarding their response to an incident at his residence.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking remedies for alleged human rights violations.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim raised substantially the same allegations and sought remedies under the Code.

As section 34(11) operates as an absolute bar to jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application and declined to consider the applicant's request to amend the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding her inability to fully buy back pension credited service for her pregnancy and parental leaves.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant knew a full buyback was not possible by July 2011, but did not file her application until August 2012.

The Tribunal concluded the application was untimely and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day deadline set out in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if the request had been timely, the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration, as she did not present new determinative facts or raise issues of general importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw an Application.

The respondent did not object to the withdrawal but objected to the applicant potentially filing a future application based on the same facts, arguing it would be an abuse of process.

The applicant's representative indicated a potential future reprisal application.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, noting that any concerns about future applications would be addressed if and when they are filed.

The respondents requested to defer a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, arguing that concurrent proceedings were ongoing before the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

The Ministry file was closed, leaving only the College proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the College complaint was only at the initial investigation stage and that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 creates an absolute statutory privilege preventing any findings from the College proceeding from being admitted in the Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application, an extension of time, and production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend as the proposed amendment was unclear.

The Tribunal interpreted the extension of time as an adjournment request and the document production as seeking time to obtain documents from a third party.

Finding the documents unnecessary for the upcoming preliminary hearing, the Tribunal directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled and ordered the parties to provide a copy of a relevant court order.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2011 alleging discrimination in housing based on disability.

Over five years, the applicant failed to meet numerous deadlines, provide requested medical information, or retain counsel due to complex health issues.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer or dismiss the application.

Finding that the applicant was incapable of participating in the hearing process for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal dismissed the application to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, noting that the dismissal was not due to fault and preserved the applicant's right to file a new application if her health improved.

The personal respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to be removed from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred within the scope of her employment.

As there were no allegations making it appropriate to order a remedy specifically against the personal respondent, and the corporate respondent was in the best position to remedy any discrimination, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the application.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB regarding her Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation despite a delay in filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application when it determined that the applicant's return-to-work plan was suitable and adequately accommodated her disability.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by his manager during his engagement as a drywall installer.

The respondent requested summary dismissal on the basis of delay, as the alleged incidents occurred between 2007 and October 2014, but the application was not filed until March 2016.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed outside the mandatory one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's ignorance of human rights law did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, and a subsequent internal investigation did not create a series of incidents to bring the allegations within time.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the respondent's representative, a lawyer who was formerly the Chair of the respondent's Board and is currently a Board member, alleging a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that these facts alone do not create a conflict of interest and the applicant failed to articulate any other basis for the claim.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

He argued that the summary hearing process breached principles of natural justice because the adjudicator terminated the hearing without allowing him to fully present his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the adjudicator had given the applicant ample opportunity to make relevant submissions and properly focused the hearing on the essential issues.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of natural justice and the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to file documents and witness statements by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not comply.

The applicant failed to respond or file materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of marital and family status after a police officer responded to a domestic incident report made by his former fiancé.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the police conduct to his marital or family status, concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissing it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

One respondent also requested dismissal of the termination allegation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal refused the s. 45.1 request because the ESA claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and did not deal with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal also refused the requests for a summary hearing and deferred the issue of delay to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to services based on colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin against FedEx Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because FedEx Canada is a federally regulated corporation, placing it outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions as directed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and abandonment.

The respondent requested the dismissal of an employment reprisal application, arguing it failed to identify a ground of discrimination.

The applicant requested to amend the application to add grounds of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry, based on allegations of accent discrimination during training.

The Tribunal denied the dismissal request, finding it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the amendment request in part, allowing the addition of the new grounds and demographic particulars, but denied the addition of specific particulars regarding a comment made by a deceased employee due to prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant, an ordained Roman Catholic Priest, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment by the respondent Bishop and Diocese.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matter is governed by the Code of Canon Law.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal added the corporate Diocese as a respondent but denied the applicant's request to add three personal respondents and to order a Tribunal inquiry.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction, employment status, timeliness, and whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.