HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming the respondent harassed him by requesting documentation for his continued disability benefits and failed to accommodate him by not assisting with his CPP appeal.

During a summary hearing held by teleconference, the applicant objected to the respondent's submissions and hung up the phone after the adjudicator ruled the hearing would proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant walking out of the hearing.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as requiring a claimant to provide documentation to support continued entitlement to insurance benefits is not discriminatory.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate her workplace restrictions.

The respondent employer and union requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicants requested an order to amend their human rights applications to add race, colour, ancestry, and sex as grounds of discrimination, and to add a request for a public interest remedy.

The applications originally alleged discrimination based on disability and association with a person identified by an enumerated ground, arising from a nightclub bouncer denying them entry.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent, who did not file a response to the request.

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

The original decision found that poverty is not an enumerated ground under the Code and that a corporation cannot have a physical or mental impairment.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability between 2011 and 2013, and that certain 'wayfinder' work was available for five years prior to his placement in that role in July 2015.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the 2011-2013 allegations, finding it would substantially alter the nature of the case and expand the scope of the hearing.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to pursue the allegation that wayfinder work was available prior to July 2015 as a further particular of his existing claim that the respondent failed to accommodate him from May 2014 onwards.

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

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 within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour against his employer, an individual respondent, and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the employer and individual respondent as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code, and the applicant's reliance on the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The allegations against the union were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own beliefs to link the union's handling of his grievances to racial discrimination.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for one week later, citing emotional distress from the death of his son four months prior.

The applicants opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that while the death of a child is tragic, a request made four months after the event and only one week before the hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a late adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

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

He argued that he disagreed with the result and that he had previously asked how to summons a witness, his former lawyer, whom he alleged was part of a conspiracy against him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that mere disagreement with the result is not a basis for reconsideration and noting that the applicant failed to raise the witness summons issue during the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment but failed to identify a ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further information explaining how the allegations related to his rights under the Code.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal requested additional information to determine if the allegations involved Code-protected rights.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial request and a subsequent extension.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and lacked a connection to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, despite having previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a full and final Release resolving an earlier application against the same respondents.

The applicant argued the settlement should be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation, financial pressure, and depression.

The Tribunal found the settlement terms clear and unambiguous, rendering extrinsic evidence inadmissible.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of economic duress or lack of capacity.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process for attempting to re-litigate settled issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace bullying and harassment based on ethnic origin.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed union grievances based on the same facts, which were scheduled for arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that the Grievance Settlement Board had jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had an outstanding civil proceeding against it alleging constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, as the court's determination on the constructive dismissal issue would impact the human rights proceedings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of sex and family status, claiming the respondent failed to enforce a child support order against her former partner.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the respondent's enforcement actions or delays to the applicant's sex or family status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employer questioned him about a vacation request.

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

Finding that the employer's questioning was a routine managerial inquiry with no adverse consequences, and that there was no evidence linking the questioning to the applicant's disability, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment based on race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, for delay, or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the applicant's termination, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations in a prior unfair labour practice proceeding.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) and could not be dismissed summarily for having no reasonable prospect of success.