HRTO 2016

The applicant filed requests to reactivate four human rights applications that had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of capacity issues in civil proceedings.

The respondents opposed reactivation due to delay and raised jurisdictional issues, including a claim by one respondent that it was a federally-regulated business.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and the respondents had not established substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymization and deferred final determination of the jurisdictional issues, directing the respondents to file formal requests for early dismissal.

The respondent requested an adjournment sine die of a hearing regarding an alleged contravention of settlement, arguing that a related civil claim was ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the adjournment, noting the minimal overlap with the civil claim and the fact that the hearing had already been rescheduled once.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and rescheduled at the applicant's request to July 5, 2016.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing by telephone conference.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant later emailed acknowledging he missed the hearing but provided no explanation.

The Tribunal found no basis to reconsider the dismissal.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement by failing to provide a braille label on the CD containing her plain text bills.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under the Minutes by instructing a provider to deliver the bills in plain text format on a CD containing all necessary information.

The application was dismissed as there was no breach of the settlement terms.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision requiring the applicant to confirm whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift a stay of proceedings against the respondent franchisee.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement against the respondents.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the Application should be dismissed.

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

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, removed two respondents who were not parties to the settlement, and dismissed the Application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated enterprise.

The applicant did not contest the federal jurisdiction issue in his response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent bank is a federally regulated employer and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the matter appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant provided decisions indicating the Ministry of Labour proceeding had concluded, and the respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

The applicant, a Black paralegal, was subjected to a racial slur by another member of the public while waiting for service at a City of Toronto courthouse.

He filed a human rights application alleging that the City and the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) discriminated against him by failing to respond appropriately to the incident and by subjecting him to adverse differential treatment.

The Tribunal found that the TPSB court officer responded reasonably to the incident and did not subject the applicant to greater scrutiny.

However, the Tribunal found that the City discriminated against the applicant when a staff member provided an inadequate response after being informed of the racial slur, leading the applicant to reasonably believe the City would take no action.

The City was ordered to pay $1,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to conduct human rights training for its staff.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of creed, claiming that the modern music played at the respondent's community centre was offensive to him as a lover of classical music.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the application fell within its jurisdiction.

Applying the Supreme Court's test for creed, the Tribunal found that the applicant's musical preferences, while sincerely held, had no religious component or connection to the divine.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage because it was plain and obvious that the claim did not relate to a ground of discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Code.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, sex, and sexual solicitation filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars before filing their Response.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its general rule that respondents must file a complete Response before raising preliminary issues like particulars, absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found the application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to know the case against them and directed them to file their Response within 14 days.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the delay, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

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

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondent school board repeatedly refused to provide her with an employment reference in accordance with its policy.

The last refusal occurred in October 2014, but the initial refusal was in June 2006.

The Tribunal held that the repeated refusal to provide a reference did not constitute a continuing contravention of the Code, and the limitation period began running in June 2006.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and concluded it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide required materials, including documents, a witness list, and witness statements, by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not respond to the respondents' requests for orders.

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

In an ongoing human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, the applicant sought to add two witnesses (her neurologist and a co-worker) and 13 documents to her evidence list.

The respondent opposed the request as untimely and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests, finding no abuse of process or prejudice to the respondent given the ample notice and time to respond.

The Tribunal also struck the evidence of a previously heard witness, as it was no longer relevant to the remaining issues in the case.

The applicant's human rights application was initially dismissed as abandoned after he failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange of documents and witness lists.

The self-represented applicant requested reconsideration, explaining that he had attempted to comply by emailing the Tribunal but failed to copy the respondent, leading to the rejection of his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not intend to abandon his application and that this factor outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the application was reinstated, with the applicant restricted to his own testimony and previously filed documents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related Ministry of Labour proceeding regarding Employment Standards Act claims.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no substantial overlap between the issues and remedies in the two proceedings.

The human rights application alleged discrimination and sexual harassment, while the Ministry of Labour claim concerned unpaid wages and hours of work.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions responding to the NOID but failed to do so.

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

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of scheduling records, training reviews, a specific customer comment card, and the contact information of thirteen employees.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the scheduling and training records as agreed, but denied the request for the comment card as it was no longer in the respondent's possession.

The Tribunal also denied the request for employee contact information, finding it overly broad and lacking explanation as to the relevance of their evidence.