HRTO 2016

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as abandoned or for abuse of process, arguing that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to produce documents and an IME report.

The applicant, who was self-represented, claimed she did not have the documents as they were with the WSIB and cited health issues.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request, finding that the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process and that she had not abandoned the application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's failure to disclose evidence could be addressed by limiting the evidence she is permitted to rely on at the hearing.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay $5,500 in general damages as required by the minutes of settlement.

The respondent did not file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement and ordered the immediate payment of the settlement funds, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour after allegedly being denied service by counter staff at a courthouse administered by the respondent City.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The adjudicator found that, taking the applicant's allegations as capable of proof, it could not be concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and ordered the respondents to file a Response.

The applicant, a probationary dental receptionist, alleged that her former employer terminated her based on her age and subjected her to sexual harassment during her employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, embellished, and lacking credibility.

The respondent provided credible evidence that the applicant was terminated due to poor performance and that she was replaced by a receptionist of a similar age.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence of age discrimination or sexual harassment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement term regarding the destruction of his fingerprints and photograph.

He submitted a new document from the RCMP to support his claim that the respondent provided misleading information.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence was not determinative and did not show that the respondent failed to fulfill its obligations under the settlement.

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled but no Form 25 was filed.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to file the settlement form or confirm an intention to proceed, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications directing the applicant to confirm availability for mediation.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence, including a final warning letter.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) identifying jurisdictional defects, including timeliness and failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates primarily because his newly retained counsel was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested outside the 14-day window are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The late retention of counsel and the proposed representative's unavailability for several months did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a delay.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to past grievances because the applicant failed to comply with previous directions to provide particulars.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the applicant's late request for document disclosure until the hearing, as the Tribunal had not yet received the request in an accessible format.

Finally, the Tribunal converted the upcoming in-person hearing to a telephone conference call for efficiency.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide dates for a hearing.

The respondent provided availability, but the applicant did not respond.

After a further warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on colour and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period without citing facts constituting good faith, and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent reminder, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against a federally regulated bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be federally regulated, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondents made discriminating and degrading comments about her mental health.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the conduct of the individual respondents was a central issue in the case.

The Tribunal concluded it would not be appropriate to remove the individual respondents at this stage, as a remedy could be sought against them directly if the harassment allegations were substantiated.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment based on his record of offences, claiming his criminal record was used against him in union elections.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant's conviction was under the Criminal Code and he had not received a pardon.

As the Human Rights Code definition of 'record of offences' requires a pardoned federal offence or a provincial offence, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal following the termination of her employment, and to change the remedies sought.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the hearing was months away and no documents had yet been exchanged.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that the parties had reached a settlement.

The applicant argued there were factual errors and challenged the finding of a settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and had not established any new facts or other factors under Rule 26.5 that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her mother's nursing home.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to file submissions on whether the applicant's mother should be added as an applicant.

The applicant failed to file submissions or provide the required confirmation of her mother's capacity and consent.

The Tribunal refused to add the mother as an applicant and directed the applicant to confirm whether she wishes to proceed with her own application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding based on the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the civil action, which included claims for defamation and unconscionable contract, relied on the same factual allegations and sought similar emotional damages as the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant consented and the respondent took no position.

Applying the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.