HRTO 2016

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, arguing that the specific allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant clarified that the last instance of alleged sexual harassment occurred within the one-year period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents amounted to a series of incidents, the last of which occurred less than a year before the application was filed, and denied the request to dismiss.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for early production of documents as premature, noting no exceptional circumstances justified departing from the standard disclosure process.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement regarding disability accommodations during his incarcerations.

The applicant requested to expedite the application, arguing that he is likely to be incarcerated again soon and that the respondent's failure to provide self-care equipment causes serious harm.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances were truly urgent given the applicant's health issues and the potential for serious physical and mental harm.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that found a de minimis breach of a settlement agreement but ordered no remedy.

The applicant alleged misinterpretation of the Code, bias, and evidentiary errors.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the case and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin, claiming she was denied legal assistance by Legal Aid Ontario while immigrants receive such assistance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the respondents Law Foundation of Ontario and the City of Toronto, as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination by them.

The applicant did not respond to the notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against those two respondents for lack of jurisdiction and ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application against Legal Aid Ontario lacks a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with in a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIA proceeding, which focused on whether the applicant's complaints were work-related, did not address the core human rights issues of failure to accommodate and constructive dismissal.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, and ancestry regarding his termination, accommodation, and shift assignments.

A concurrent grievance arbitration was already underway challenging the termination.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, considered whether to defer the application.

Finding that the central issue of termination was being addressed in the arbitration, and that the earlier allegations of failure to accommodate and discriminatory shift assignments were tied to the termination for jurisdictional purposes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a child with autism and secondary disabilities, alleged discrimination in the provision of services after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The respondents, Kinark Child and Family Services and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry, finding no allegations of specific acts that disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of disability.

However, the Tribunal denied Kinark's request to dismiss, as the applicant alleged the testing used for discharge failed to accommodate her secondary disabilities, which required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Brockville Police Service Board and Michael Grant.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal converted the upcoming hearing into a preliminary hearing to address the issue of delay and directed the parties to provide submissions and medical evidence regarding whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that an upcoming summary hearing be conducted in writing rather than orally, citing her self-represented status and inability to meaningfully participate in an oral hearing.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure prohibit the final disposition of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Because a summary hearing could result in the dismissal of the application, and the respondents did not waive their right to oral submissions, the hearing could not proceed solely in writing.

The applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal that the parties had settled the matter and would file a Confirmation of Settlement Form.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the parties to file the form by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

When no form or confirmation of intent to proceed was received, 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, claiming wrongful arrest and mistreatment while in police custody.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that a severe brain injury caused the delay.

The Tribunal found that while a disability may be a good faith explanation for delay, the applicant provided no medical evidence demonstrating that the disability prevented him from pursuing his legal rights.

Furthermore, the applicant had been able to pursue a complaint to the OIPRD before filing the application.

The Tribunal concluded there was no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Contravention Application alleging that the respondent failed to pay financial compensation as part of a settlement.

The applicant requested an order to amend the current application and the closed application to reflect the respondents' proper legal names.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the current application but denied the request to amend the closed application, finding it was functus officio.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to explain why Epiqvision Inc. was named as a respondent when no breach was alleged against it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against two respondents.

One respondent, a truck rental company, brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application against it on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations involved continuous and regular extra-provincial transportation of goods.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent is a federal undertaking under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two Contravention of Settlement Applications and subsequently requested to withdraw them.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested that conditions be imposed to prevent the applicant from re-litigating the same allegations, arguing that the applicant's correspondence attempted to impose unilateral conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's correspondence did not impose conditions and, following established jurisprudence, declined to impose a 'with prejudice' condition on the withdrawal prior to a hearing.

The request to withdraw was granted without conditions.

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

The parties agreed to mediation but neither attended the scheduled session.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter requiring the applicant to confirm their intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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

During the hearing of a human rights application, the applicant sought to amend her claim to include allegations that she was denied a performance review in 2014 and a bonus paid in 2015, arguing that late disclosure by the respondent prejudiced her ability to assess the issues earlier.

The respondent objected, claiming prejudice because it had not called witnesses to address these specific claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as it had notice that wages and bonuses were at issue, and the respondent's own changing position on bonuses contributed to the applicant's lack of clarity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent Town discriminated against him on the basis of sex in its property tax collection efforts.

The applicant claimed the Town was more aggressive with him than it had been with his mother when she previously owned the property.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the difference in treatment was attributable to the mother's limited financial means and disability, rather than sex discrimination.

The Tribunal also considered the applicant's request to amend his application to include allegations of reprisal, finding that the alleged events either occurred before the applicant claimed his Code rights or lacked any reasonable basis to suggest reprisal.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications, reactivate the first application, and defer the second application pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The request to reactivate the first application was denied, and the second application was deferred, as the related grievance process, including a judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, had not yet concluded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application for family status discrimination, arguing the adjudicator ignored evidence, failed to address a disability claim, and was biased.

The applicant also requested the anonymization of the decision to protect her mother's medical information.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding the applicant was attempting to reargue her case and raise a new claim not made at the hearing.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for anonymization was denied because the medical information was not highly sensitive and did not outweigh the public interest in open justice.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her hours of work were reduced upon informing her employer of her pregnancy.

The respondent failed to respond to the application and did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in the reduction of her hours, constituting a violation of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $4,114 in lost wages and $10,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.