HRTO 2016

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent, the president of a trapshooting association, claiming his membership was revoked and he was removed from the executive after refusing sexual advances.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The allegations from 2011 were found to be out of time with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The timely allegations regarding letters sent in 2013 and 2014 were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, because the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions to link the respondent's actions to the alleged sexual solicitation, especially given the applicant's intervening criminal conviction for breach of trust related to the association's finances.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

They argued the decision conflicted with established case law regarding spousal financial obligations under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and the Family Law Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicants were merely attempting to re-argue their case and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The respondent requested an interim order for access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file, arguing it was necessary to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that while the file is protected personal health information, access is required for the respondent to defend the application.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent a 35-day extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the hearing due to a health condition that her doctors claimed prevented her from participating in a conventional adversarial process.

The respondents opposed the request, citing the delay and the need to test the applicant's evidence through cross-examination.

The Tribunal denied the indefinite adjournment but granted a six-month adjournment, ordering the applicant to provide further medical reports addressing her future ability to participate in a verbal hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability after the respondent municipality removed a footbridge she had built on municipal property and created a speed bump at the end of her driveway.

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

The evidence showed the footbridge was removed due to neighbour complaints, sight line obstructions, and being on municipal property without permission, not because of the applicant's disability.

The applicant also failed to establish a disability-related need for the footbridge or that the driveway work was discriminatory or retaliatory.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against her employer.

After retaining counsel, she brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a lead hand and a co-worker as individual respondents.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request to add the lead hand, noting specific allegations against him, minimal prejudice, and the potential need for a specific remedial order.

The request to add the co-worker was deferred because the request had not been properly delivered to him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, sex, and family status against the Toronto Transit Commission and an individual respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent and a summary hearing.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent.

The request for a summary hearing was denied without reasons, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning of potential abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting dates to reschedule a mediation, and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her based on race, colour, place of origin, and/or ethnic origin by refusing to show or rent an apartment to her after learning she was from the Caribbean.

The respondent claimed he decided not to rent the apartment because he had decided to sell the property.

The Tribunal found the respondent's explanation lacked credibility and concluded that the applicant's place of origin was a factor in the refusal.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to complete human rights training.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed because the substance had been dealt with in an arbitration proceeding.

At the commencement of the teleconference hearing, the applicant stated she would not participate, demanded the adjudicator investigate the arbitration process, and hung up the phone.

After waiting 10 minutes for the applicant to return, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after the respondent denied his request for Direct Funding.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in an appeal to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the HSARB appeal was withdrawn without a decision on the merits.

However, the Tribunal directed a summary and preliminary hearing to determine whether the application has no reasonable prospect of success as a challenge to a statutory benefits decision, and whether it is out of time under s. 34 of the Code.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing for over a year because its counsel was taking a pregnancy and parental leave and the respondent preferred to retain her.

The applicant opposed the lengthy delay, citing prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a key witness, and lost records.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a delay of that length would not be fair, just, or expeditious, and that the respondent could assign another lawyer from the same firm to the file.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application because he repeatedly declined to confirm his availability for hearing dates.

The applicant argued there were new facts, a lack of notice, and conflicts with established jurisprudence, while also alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions were confusing, failed to address the actual reason for the dismissal, and merely recited legal principles without connecting them to the facts of the case.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or being untimely.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She alleged breaches of procedural fairness, including ignored requests for transcription of handwritten documents, exposure to scents by opposing counsel, and adjudicator bias.

The Tribunal found no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and concluded the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application without prejudice to his right to re-file in the future.

The respondent Durham College objected, arguing that permitting withdrawal without terms would open the door to an abuse of process given the significant expense already incurred.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw without terms, noting that if the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations, the respondents may raise their objections at that time.