HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay $4,500 in general damages by the date required in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent acknowledged the oversight and paid the amount 11 days late, immediately upon receiving the Application.

The Tribunal found the 11-day delay constituted a breach of the settlement but concluded it was a de minimis breach.

As the applicant provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress resulting from the minor delay, the Tribunal declined to award compensation and dismissed the Application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to his membership in a vocational association.

The Tribunal previously deferred the proceeding pending a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter requesting a status update and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the inquiry.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide disclosure materials by the specified deadlines.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing her applications as abandoned, seeking to have her name anonymized on all public records.

She argued that the public availability of the decisions was hindering her ability to find and maintain employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no evidence to substantiate her belief that the decisions were affecting her employment prospects, and thus failed to demonstrate the vulnerability or potential harm required to override the open court principle.

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 specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and two individual respondents.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the individual respondents, arguing they acted within the scope of their employment and the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions.

The Tribunal applied the established test for removing individual respondents and found no compelling reason to keep them as parties, as the corporate respondent could fully respond to and remedy the alleged Code infringement.

The request to remove the individual respondents was granted.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal sent a letter requiring the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race, colour, and gender identity by the Superior Court of Justice – Family Court.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to challenge the outcome of an adjudicative process.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

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

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to address the denial of home care services for three weekends after her personal support worker was changed.

The Tribunal found that the discontinuance of service is not inherently discriminatory and the applicant provided no factual basis linking the denial of services to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it was an attempt to re-argue the case.

Following a settlement between the applicant and Imvescor, the parties requested a consent order to remove Imvescor as a respondent and name a bankrupt numbered company instead.

The trustee in bankruptcy for the numbered company agreed to the proposed order.

The Tribunal granted the consent order, amending its previous decision to reflect the correct respondent.

The applicant requested a three-week adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing the respondent's late filing of two decisions it intended to rely upon.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that while the respondent should have filed the decisions earlier, an adjournment was not necessary.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant required more time to address the late-filed decisions, she could request to file written submissions.

The applicant, a Muslim woman who wears a hijab, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after her employer informed her she could no longer wear her hijab while working at a Catholic school due to a contract change with the school board.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application to add sex as a ground of discrimination, amend her requested remedies, and add the Catholic school board as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted all three requests, finding the amendments were sought at an early stage and the school board was appropriately added as the entity responsible for the contract terms that led to the alleged discrimination.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not file witness statements or documents and ceased communication with the Tribunal and the respondent.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The applicant failed to comply with disclosure obligations and did not respond to the respondent's request for particulars.

After failing to provide availability for a case management conference call, the Tribunal scheduled a call and warned the applicant that failure to attend could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not call in or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a witness list, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal, the applicant still did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, who uses a certified service dog, was denied service by the owner of a UPS Store franchise.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the franchisor, MBEC Communications Inc., arguing it was vicariously liable for the franchisee's discriminatory actions under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that while the franchisor exercised some control to protect its brand, it did not have substantial control over the day-to-day operations of the franchisee.

The franchisee operated as an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the franchisor.

Consequently, the franchisor could not be held liable for the franchisee's actions, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination when the respondents decided not to enter into a retail lease with her prospective employer.

The individual respondent requested to be removed as a party, arguing that the corporate respondent was liable for the same conduct and there was no suggestion she acted outside the scope of her employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent's alleged conduct was central to the application, as the applicant alleged the leasing decision was made for personal, non-business reasons.

The applicants, three Muslim condominium unit owners, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and property management company discriminated against them on the basis of creed by holding a special owners' meeting on the evening of Eid-ul-Azha.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not intentionally schedule the meeting on the religious holiday and did not treat the applicants in a distinct and disadvantageous manner.

Furthermore, even if the scheduling had an adverse effect on the applicants' ability to observe their faith, the respondents reasonably accommodated their creed-based needs by allowing them to participate and vote by proxy.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a related action in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual issues between the two proceedings and noted the civil action was at a more advanced stage.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the civil action.