HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The individual respondent could not be reached at the provided addresses, and correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

The applicant's counsel located the individual respondent's Facebook profile and sent a message regarding the application, but received no response.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondent appeared to be evading service and ordered the applicant to deliver the Interim Decision to him via Facebook, warning that failure to provide contact information could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she left the hearing.

She alleged a conspiracy between the Vice-chair and the respondent, and argued the Vice-chair was biased and wrongly removed her representative.

The Tribunal found no new facts or evidence to justify reconsideration, noting that the issues had already been fully canvassed and decided.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction and a Registrar's letter.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant explained that he had requested correspondence by mail only, and it appeared he did not receive some notices sent by courier.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive notice of the proceeding through no fault of his own and that he intended to pursue his application.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming a taxi driver refused him service due to his certified service dog.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was some evidence reasonably available that could support the allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed to a two-day hearing to determine liability, including whether the respondent taxi company is vicariously liable for the driver's actions.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination based on pregnancy filed a request for production of documents relating to her job performance, the respondents' progressive discipline policy, and email tracking records.

The respondents submitted that they had already disclosed all relevant documents in their possession and had no formal discipline policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had disclosed all relevant documents they possessed and noting that the applicant would have the opportunity to question the respondents' witness regarding the receipt of emails.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

The applicant argued that reactivation was necessary due to the departure of key witnesses and delays by the respondent in scheduling the arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not been unduly delayed and that reactivating the application would risk concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant's other requests were dismissed as premature.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether the WSIB proceeding was still ongoing.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its Response to the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that exceptional circumstances justified early production of the medical documents, as privacy legislation otherwise prevented the respondent from accessing its own internal files needed to meaningfully respond.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination, which overlapped with ongoing grievances filed by her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the second application because the issues were substantially the same as those before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

Despite the applicant's concerns about delay, the Tribunal deferred the applications, noting that the GSB has the authority to address human rights issues and that deferral prevents concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged that the respondent employment agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex, gender identity, and gender expression by posting a job advertisement seeking a 'woman' for a receptionist position.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant possessed protected characteristics, she did not experience adverse treatment because she self-identifies as a woman and did not apply for the position before the advertisement was removed.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because carriage of the matter was transferred to new counsel who had a scheduling conflict.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent had been aware of the hearing dates for several months and that retaining or assigning new counsel late in the process did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant filed two applications under the Human Rights Code.

The first alleged that his former employer breached the confidentiality clause of a prior settlement agreement by making negative comments about him in the auto industry.

The second alleged that another dealership refused to hire him because he had filed a human rights application against his former employer, constituting discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistent evidence and disruptive behaviour during the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the refusal to hire the applicant was based on his poor reputation in the industry, not on any knowledge of his prior human rights application.

Both applications were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

Following the final judgment in the other proceeding, the applicant failed to request reactivation of the application within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a person with a disability, alleged that the respondent Town discriminated against him by requiring a railing next to his hot tub, which would impede his access to the deck in a medical emergency, and through discriminatory treatment by Town officials.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that neither the Town by-laws nor the Building Code required a railing for the deck's elevation change.

Furthermore, communications from Town officials merely advised the applicant of compliance options and did not support a claim of discriminatory treatment.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and subsequently commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

Finding that the civil matter involved overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application as abandoned.

The request was filed 11 months after the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and noting that the new incidents alleged by the applicant bore no relation to the original dismissal.

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

The request was filed five months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay, noting the request appeared to be based on new, unrelated incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration as it was out of time and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued he should have been allowed to present his entire case, alleged the Tribunal applied a different standard because he is Black, and objected to not being provided with legal counsel.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disagreement with the summary hearing process and the outcome was not a sufficient reason for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging gender discrimination and reprisal regarding the promotional process within the Windsor Police Service.

The respondents sought to dismiss the second application as an abuse of process, dismiss certain allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, and declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the second application or declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding her conduct consistent with a self-represented litigant navigating complex procedures.

Instead, the Tribunal consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal also struck allegations of racial discrimination for lack of standing but allowed the reprisal and age discrimination allegations to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success and for delay.

The applicant argued that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was largely attempting to re-argue her case and that her new allegations did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.