HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination based on disability.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation, but the respondent failed to execute the settlement forms and was subsequently placed under a trusteeship pursuant to the Construction Lien Act, which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant advised the Tribunal he was commencing a Superior Court proceeding to enforce the settlement, and the Tribunal deferred the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal requests for an update on the court proceeding, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent grievance.

The applicant indicated that the grievance had been withdrawn on the advice of her union.

As the grievance was withdrawn, the Tribunal found it inappropriate to defer the application and ordered that it proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of a disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing WSIB proceeding regarding the same injury.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the clear overlap in facts and issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her request for prayer breaks and unfairly targeted her for discipline.

The applicant had also filed grievances regarding the same issues, which were heard by an arbitrator who issued an award addressing the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, creed, sex, and age, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The applicant alleged she was denied time off for a religious holiday, subjected to ageist comments, and denied accommodation for pregnancy-related medical appointments and a miscarriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding the applicant to be an unreliable and non-credible witness whose testimony was internally inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by documentary evidence and the testimony of the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code or that the termination was discriminatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay of proceedings under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

After the applicant confirmed she did not intend to bring a motion in court to lift the stay, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, deferred consideration of the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding.

The applicant requested that an upcoming summary hearing, scheduled to proceed by teleconference, be held in-person or in writing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling reason to depart from the standard practice of holding summary hearings by teleconference.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of a proceeding before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The respondent did not take a position on the reactivation but filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to reactivate the application, finding she complied with Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's Request for Summary Hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, apparently on consent of the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing at this stage.

Finally, the Tribunal directed both parties to comply with their overdue disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, warning of potential consequences for non-compliance.

The respondents requested an order during proceedings to redact a document containing the personal information of third parties from the applicant's written particulars.

The document listed the names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of executive members of a federal riding association.

The Tribunal found that the document contained personal information that was not arguably relevant to the application, although the fact of the applicant's membership on the executive was relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the document redacted to protect the privacy interests of the non-parties.

The respondent Durham Student Transportation Services (DSTS) requested to add the Durham District School Board (DDSB) as a respondent to human rights applications alleging discrimination in school bus transportation based on family status.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found that DDSB's policies determined transportation eligibility and DSTS could not act without DDSB's authority.

As DDSB consented and there was no prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add DDSB as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a request for a medical leave of absence following her maternity leave.

The respondents requested the removal of three individual management staff as respondents.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add new allegations regarding a subsequent return to work process.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was fully liable and capable of remedying any infringement.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were different in nature and would cause significant delay to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include additional allegations regarding lack of accommodation, systemic discrimination, and expanded remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to lack of accommodation for a permanent job, assertions made by the respondent, and expanded remedies including reinstatement and damages.

The Tribunal denied the request to add allegations regarding a gradual onset injury as it was outside the one-year limitation period, and denied the addition of systemic discrimination claims as they did not address the fundamental issue of individual accommodation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued the adjudicator erred in finding she had the assistance of legal counsel in preparing her duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal found that while it would have been more precise to say counsel assisted with the confirmation of filing, the distinction was not determinative.

The relevant finding was that she had access to a lawyer and the means to inquire about her human rights at that time.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him in employment on the basis of sexual orientation by failing to respond to his communications and failing to provide scenic training.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's alleged failure to act or provide training to his sexual orientation.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application following the conclusion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

She also requested an order for the production of documents, an in-person preliminary hearing, and permission for a union president to attend her hearings.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application but denied the requests for an in-person hearing and early production of documents, finding the latter premature.

The Tribunal noted that its hearings are open to the public, allowing the union president to attend the telephone conference call.

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

The respondent was subject to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The applicant agreed to the deferral, but the respondent opposed it, arguing that other applications were proceeding and that delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal held that it is bound by the CCAA stay and that the order lifting the stay for unionized employees did not apply to the applicant, who was a manager.

The application was deferred until the stay is lifted or leave is granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code and as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the grievance arbitration did not appropriately deal with his accommodation allegations.

The Tribunal found the new evidence was not relevant as it was created almost three years after the events at issue.

The Tribunal also held the arbitrator had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application by finding the applicant was physically able to do the assigned work, meaning there was no duty to accommodate.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Following a conference call, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file witness statements and other documents by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to comply, requested and received an extension, but again failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal for over four months.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with his obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure without reasonable justification and dismissed the application as abandoned.