HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant's representative indicated the applicant could not attend the hearing due to medical issues, but failed to submit a formal adjournment request with medical documentation as directed by the Tribunal.

The applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because of his race almost ten years after the termination occurred.

He claimed he only discovered the alleged discriminatory reason when he received documents from the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 2015.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to make reasonable and diligent efforts to discover the reason for his termination during a six-year period of inaction, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application, claiming a grievance had been filed with the union.

The applicant disputed this, stating no grievance was filed and she lacked union support to do so.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application as no grievance existed.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled the matter for mediation.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination during a probationary period, sought to amend his application and requested the contact information of several of the respondent's employees to summons them as witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide contact information for several employees whose anticipated testimony regarding the applicant's performance and the respondent's alleged fabrication of evidence could be relevant, except for those employees the respondent had already confirmed it would call as witnesses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide current contact information for one of the personal respondents, who had moved, or advise if she wished to proceed without him.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that she did not want to add the individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision removing the individual as a personal respondent and amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability and harassment.

The parties subsequently signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a related grievance.

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application as an abuse of process based on the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was intended to resolve all outstanding issues, including the human rights claims, and that the applicant failed to establish duress or lack of capacity to agree to the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of a main witness who had to care for her daughter following dental surgery.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the inability of a single witness to attend a multi-day hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, and that the scheduled hearing time could still be used to hear other witnesses.

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

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

The applicant failed to file the required materials and did not respond to two Case Assessment Directions, which warned that the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by the WSIB's closure of the applicant's work transition plan and an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB's administrative closure was not a 'proceeding' and did not address the discrimination allegations, and that the ESA decision dealt only with statutory pay entitlements, not the human rights claims.

The respondent brought requests for orders during proceedings to strike portions of the Application, exclude certain documents and witness statements, and compel document disclosure.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs and excluded evidence relating to other employees' family status accommodation requests, finding them irrelevant to the applicant's specific case and likely to unnecessarily lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents, including those related to custody arrangements and mitigation efforts, subject to redactions for privacy.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

He claimed he had submitted a Form 10 prior to the dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not send anything prior to the decision being issued, noting discrepancies in the emails provided as evidence.

The applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established case law, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the first day, citing a last-minute breakdown in the relationship with her legal representative and a loss of confidence.

The respondent opposed the request due to the inconvenience and expense of having witnesses and an advisor present.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden breakdown of the representative-client relationship constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment, while warning the applicant to be diligent in retaining new counsel or preparing to self-represent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached minutes of settlement by failing to provide a Record of Employment (ROE) and a letter of employment by the agreed-upon deadlines.

The Tribunal found no breach regarding the letter of employment, as no specific deadline was set and it was provided promptly.

However, the respondent breached the settlement by failing to issue the ROE by the explicit deadline.

Applying contractual principles, the Tribunal awarded $524 in damages for one week of lost Employment Insurance benefits, finding this loss was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.

Claims for damages related to a missed trucking course were dismissed as too remote.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and age after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions linking the respondent's actions to his race or age.

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

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he needed more time to gather information for his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and that a party's lack of preparation does not meet this threshold.

The Tribunal also issued directions for pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing a final exam and a doctor's appointment.

The Tribunal requested written proof of the exam and medical appointment.

The applicant provided a class schedule and a sleep study requisition, neither of which confirmed the dates of the alleged conflicts.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination related to her termination.

She also filed a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding potential delay, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the significant risk of inconsistent findings, noting the substantial overlap in the subject matter of the two proceedings.

The applicants requested an order during proceedings to amend their human rights applications to add a claim for $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the applicants were not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination, new parties, or withdraw admissions.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights Application following the dismissal of his Duty of Fair Representation complaint at the OLRB.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation but ultimately dismissed the Application, finding that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred upon termination, making the Application late.

The Tribunal further held that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for the union grievance process to conclude did not justify failing to file a timely human rights Application.

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

After the original respondent failed to file a response and was noted in default, the applicant requested an order to add Signarama Canada Inc. as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, amended the title of proceedings, and held the application in abeyance for up to 30 days to allow the applicant to confirm the new respondent's contact information before scheduling a case management conference call.