HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

Two of the respondents filed for bankruptcy and submitted Notices of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal held that human rights proceedings seeking monetary relief are claims provable in bankruptcy and are therefore subject to the statutory stay under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed against the bankrupt respondents, while proceedings against the remaining personal respondent continued.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by opposing counsel in a civil litigation proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over the conduct of opposing counsel.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that there is no service relationship between a party and opposing counsel under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age following her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to economic duress and misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that financial pressure alone does not constitute economic duress and that the respondent did not make any false representations regarding the business reasons for her termination.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, sexual orientation, and family status.

Both parties requested that the Tribunal defer the application while they pursued settlement discussions and the respondent completed an internal investigation.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that it does not defer proceedings to facilitate negotiations between parties, and ordered the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the individual respondents, who were acting within the scope of their employment, and that the corporate respondent could satisfy the remedies sought.

The applicant did not demonstrate any prejudice from their removal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The parties participated in mediation and reached a settlement, but failed to file the required Settlement Form (Form 25) within the specified timeframe.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm their intention to proceed, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Having received no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as 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.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or explain how the alleged reprisal related to Code rights.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences after he was not considered for a bylaw enforcement officer position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's Police Services Act convictions met the definition of a record of offences, he provided no evidence that the respondents knew about his disability or these specific convictions when making their hiring decision.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was terminated because of belligerent behaviour caused by his disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a concurrent complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) regarding the same issue and seeking the same remedy of lost commissions.

The Tribunal found that the ESA complaint would address the same facts and allegations as the human rights application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

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

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and place of origin against the Ottawa Police Service and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the OIPRD on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the OIPRD as abandoned and directed the Registrar to serve the application on the Ottawa Police Service.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences after the respondent withdrew a job offer due to his criminal record.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant's federal criminal record was unpardoned.

The applicant conceded he had not received a pardon but argued the respondent's actions were inconsistent with its policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because an unpardoned federal offence does not fall within the Code's definition of 'record of offences'.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and gender expression, as well as reprisal, after the respondent walk-in clinic denied him access to his medical records, prohibited him from video recording staff, and banned him from the clinic.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the clinic's actions to the applicant's disability, determined that the ground of gender expression does not protect cisgender men expressing themselves in stereotypically male ways, and concluded that filing a privacy complaint is not a protected right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and subsequent directions from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to call into a telephone conference hearing.

The applicant submitted that she was unable to participate due to health problems and disabilities that impaired her concentration and ability to read.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant intended to participate but was prevented by her disability, granted the reconsideration, and directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he hung up the phone during a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to accommodate his mental health disabilities by not holding an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not requested an in-person hearing prior to the summary hearing and that his accommodation requests regarding timing had been met.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities based on sexual orientation and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, asking the parties for submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.

Both parties submitted that the Application should not be deferred.

The Tribunal agreed and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Canada Post.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because Canada Post appeared to be a federally regulated employer.

The applicant did not respond to the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that Canada Post is a federally regulated enterprise outside the Tribunal's provincial jurisdiction.