HRTO 2016

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

She argued the proceedings concluded with a Labour Arbitration Award.

The respondent opposed, noting the arbitrator remitted the issue of remedy to the parties and remained seized.

The Tribunal found the grievance proceedings had not concluded and denied the request to reactivate, keeping the application deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than one year after her termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because she was attempting to resolve the matter through her paralegal.

The Tribunal found that settlement discussions had broken down seven months prior to the limitation period expiry, and the applicant provided no explanation for the subsequent delay.

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

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, including disability and age, following a 75-minute power outage that affected her CPAP machine.

She also alleged discrimination and reprisal related to the respondents' efforts to collect court-ordered costs from a previous Small Claims Court proceeding.

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 linking the respondents' actions to any protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his employer changed his shift schedule, which interfered with his childcare obligations.

The application was filed more than one year after the incident, as the applicant had pursued a union grievance that was ultimately withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the grievance process to conclude did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay in filing under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on creed, claiming he was repeatedly asked to work on his Sabbath and that his employment was terminated in reprisal for asserting his human rights.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and unreliable, concluding that he was never asked to work on Saturdays and that his termination was due to documented performance issues.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Furthermore, given the applicant's history of filing numerous unmeritorious applications and his conduct, the Tribunal declared him a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain leave before filing future applications.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on race and colour when police officers responded to a noise complaint about his singing.

In advance of the hearing, the respondent objected to the admissibility of audio-recordings of 911 calls made by the applicant two years later, arguing they were irrelevant.

The Tribunal ruled the recordings admissible, finding they may have some relevance to the applicant's contention that race is a factor in how police deal with noise complaints, with the weight to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to bring unredacted copies of previously produced audio-recordings and memobook notes to the hearing to justify any redactions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of sex and disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations from 2012 to 2015, as the parties agreed they were addressed by the arbitrator.

For the remaining allegations from 1996 to 2011, which were filed outside the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his employer denied his request for time off and he had exhausted his vacation entitlement.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that the applicant had ample time to schedule his availability and that a work conflict is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that while the applicant should have been more proactive, declining the request would effectively require him to choose between his employment and attending the hearing, which constituted an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant requested an extension of time, disclosure of exam copies, and access to his student email accounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the extension of time unnecessary due to a rescheduled hearing, and the document disclosure request premature under Rule 16.

The respondents noted the exam copies had been destroyed in accordance with college policy.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was delivered to the applicant's representative.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on its merits based on written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicants, a same-sex married couple, alleged discrimination after a private Christian school denied their child admission to its preschool program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural requests.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce internal admission policies but denied broader requests for other parents' application forms.

The Tribunal allowed the applicants to amend their pleadings to add grounds of creed, family status, and marital status.

To protect the minor child's identity, the Tribunal ordered the record sealed but declined to close the hearing to the public.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application at the summary hearing stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on race and colour after an incident at the respondent's store where he was accused of harassing a customer and asked to leave.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision was not in conflict with established jurisprudence regarding summary hearings or racial profiling, as the applicant failed to provide any circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent's actions to his race or colour.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his transfer to another detention centre, denial of promotion, and placement in an attendance management program.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found the transfer issue was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator and dismissed it to prevent duplicative litigation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the promotion and attendance management allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the promotion claim was speculative and placement in an attendance management program alone does not establish discrimination.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants filed requests to withdraw their human rights applications against the respondent Foster Parents Association of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

As the respondent did not file a response to the requests, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal without terms and amended the style of cause to remove the Association.

The Tribunal also noted the parties' agreement that there was no reason to defer the applications.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, seeking to proceed to a hearing to obtain remedies in its favour.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, noting that refusing the request would serve little purpose as the Tribunal cannot compel the applicant's attendance, and it lacks the authority to award the remedies sought by the respondent.

The respondent requested an order for the production of documents and an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the self-represented applicant to produce documents regarding her civil action for long-term disability benefits, her medical condition, and any income earned since commencing her medical leave, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of compensation and credibility.

The request for an adjournment was denied, as any issues regarding the sufficiency of disclosure could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because she would be a hospital inpatient on the hearing date due to serious health concerns.

The respondent opposed the request, noting preparation and scheduled time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that medical treatment preventing attendance constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant requested an order permitting his treating physiotherapist to testify by teleconference due to the financial hardship of travelling from Ottawa to London.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that an electronic hearing would cause significant prejudice by depriving it of a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness on a crucial incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate how it would be prejudiced or impeded in its cross-examination simply because the evidence would be given by telephone.

The Tribunal noted that visual scrutiny of a witness is not necessary for assessing credibility, particularly for a medical professional whose evidence primarily concerns diagnoses and observations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability against a corporate respondent.

After the corporate respondent failed to file a response, the applicant requested to add an individual, Lisa Hope, as a respondent.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, there was a compelling reason to add the individual due to the corporate respondent's non-participation and the fact that corporations cannot be deemed liable for harassment under s. 46.3(1), and it was fair to do so.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.