HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of email messages between the respondent's personnel regarding his use of Accident/Incident Reporting forms.

The applicant alleged these emails would show he was singled out to withdraw his ongoing accommodation.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal found the emails arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The Tribunal also noted the respondent's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, and ordered the respondent to produce its documents and witness list by a specified date, failing which it may be barred from presenting evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial and international bulk shipping company.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because its operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust termination by his former employer.

Prior to filing the applications, the applicant and his union had signed a full and final settlement and release regarding a grievance over his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applications as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the release applied to the allegations in the applications and rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her supervisor and the school board.

The personal respondent and the union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of related grievances filed by the union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating she did not consent to or have knowledge of the grievance filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate to defer the application for a grievance the applicant did not initiate or consent to.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The applicant sought to nullify a settlement agreement reached during a Tribunal mediation, arguing he did not understand what he was signing due to cognitive disabilities and that the mediator pressured him into signing.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to set aside a settlement.

The evidence showed the applicant understood the key terms and the consequences of signing, and the pressure experienced during mediation did not amount to duress.

The request to nullify the settlement was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing a potential scheduling conflict with a pending civil lawsuit against the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the mere possibility of a future scheduling conflict did not constitute exceptional circumstances required to grant an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to disclose documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to provide the required materials and did not respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking a determination that the respondent breached settlement privilege by disclosing protected communications, and requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself for having reviewed them.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the privilege issue had already been addressed in a prior case assessment direction and that reviewing documents not entered into evidence does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression after her long-term disability claim following gender re-assignment surgery was delayed.

The respondent insurer had requested additional medical information to confirm the surgery was medically necessary under the policy exclusions.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success, as the insurer's request for medical confirmation of the surgery's necessity did not constitute discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, sex, and reprisal against his employer and his union.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding they fell outside its jurisdiction or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer prior to April 2014 as untimely, finding that a 16-month gap broke the series of incidents and that pursuing grievances did not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was permitted to continue regarding the timely allegations of denied accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his legal representative and Legal Aid Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's response to the NOID, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as the allegations concerned unfair treatment and dissatisfaction with legal representation rather than Code violations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services.

The applicant argued there were new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and matters of public importance.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence related to events occurring after the application and could not be determinative.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with jurisprudence or procedure, noting the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a manager trainee, went on medical leave due to a leg injury.

Despite keeping his manager informed and providing medical notes, he was terminated when he attempted to return to work, with the employer claiming he had abandoned his position.

The employer also refused to rehire him due to concerns he might reinjure himself.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability and that the termination and refusal to rehire were discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $17,777 for lost earnings and $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

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

After requesting an adjournment of the first day of the hearing due to illness, the Tribunal directed the parties to attend a teleconference on the second day to address the adjournment request and potential mediation-adjudication.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned by the applicant.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add several individuals as respondents to his human rights application against the school board.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that there were no allegations in the application that could support a finding of discrimination against the proposed individuals.

Furthermore, allegations against some of the proposed respondents had already been dismissed in previous proceedings.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the parties were ordered to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination based on age and physical condition related to the 2014 municipal election process and internet voting.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications.

Finding that the applications involved the same parties, subject matter, and type of alleged discrimination arising from the same facts, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant, a seasonal outdoors caricature artist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts based on marital status and gender by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

Finding that the applicant's narrative only described general unfairness regarding a modified vendor permit and failed to connect the respondent's actions to any Code-protected ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or explain the basis for the reprisal claim.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent clinic misdiagnosed him, caused his driver's license to be suspended, and failed to file for disability benefits.

The last alleged incident occurred in March 2014, but the application was not filed until January 2016.

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

The applicant submitted that he fell into a deep depression but provided no medical evidence to show the disability prevented him from pursuing his rights.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested an order for the production of various documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce documents related to the applicant's performance and training, as well as statistics on the personal characteristics of other employees trained by a specific individual, finding them arguably relevant to the allegations.

The request for communications with the union was denied as the respondent did not possess them.