HRTO 2016

The Tribunal reconsidered its own motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The applicant had filed the required pre-hearing disclosure materials, but they were not visible to the adjudicator due to an upgrade to the Tribunal's electronic case management system.

Recognizing the administrative error, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered the hearing to be rescheduled.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by assisting his employer in requesting a medical note before he could attend a convention, and by creating barriers to a grievance settlement.

The respondent union requested a summary dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the duty of fair representation.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the union did not formulate a discriminatory rule but merely assisted in communicating the employer's demands, which does not amount to differential treatment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file written submissions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file written submissions.

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

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability against her employer and union.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there were no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the union.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer relating to the period prior to February 2012 under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a previous labour arbitration decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of those accommodation issues.

The hearing was directed to reconvene to address the remaining allegations concerning the period after February 2012 and the applicant's termination.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of ethnic origin, creed, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, following his eviction from an emergency shelter.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations linking his treatment to a prohibited ground were pure speculation and belief, and that the majority of his complaints related to shelter conditions and municipal by-laws outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant was provided notice but failed to attend the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a resident of the respondent housing co-operative, requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had alleged discrimination based on place of origin, claiming she was not allowed to use the English version of her Polish name.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely sought to reargue her case and failed to provide new determinative evidence or identify factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application alleging disability discrimination, following the resolution of a related policy grievance.

The respondents opposed, noting that an individual grievance raising the same accommodation issues remained outstanding and was proceeding through the grievance steps.

The Tribunal found that given the parallel issues, the application should continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of the individual grievance or arbitration process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The applicant provided no reasons for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to reconsider the deferral, but instead asked the Tribunal to address a prior request for production.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the request for production would be addressed if the application is re-activated.

The applicant, a student teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after her placement with the respondent school board was terminated abruptly.

The termination followed a confrontation with her supervising teacher regarding a lesson plan and timing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the respondents was one of services, not employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reliable evidence that the applicant's ethnic origin was a factor in her treatment or the termination of her placement, and attributing the issues to the applicant's lateness, failure to communicate absences, and performance concerns.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred pending the completion of a Claims Adjudication Officer's proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal found that there was overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

After requesting to reschedule a mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing him to provide available dates.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for abandonment pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination regarding an Addition to Household application, and requested production of related documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the new allegations were beyond the scope of the current proceedings and would cause prejudice by necessitating the re-opening of the hearing.

Consequently, the request for document production was also denied as the documents were no longer relevant.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the respondent based on perceived mental illness, including denial of a housing worker and access to a women's shelter.

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

The applicant failed to provide particulars of her allegations despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it consisted only of bald assertions with no reasonable prospect of success.

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 a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisals by her employer.

The union had previously filed grievances on her behalf regarding her termination, which were before an arbitrator.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievances dealt with similar subject matter and the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability by the respondent landlord.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant and his roommate had previously brought similar allegations before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, concluding that the conflict stemmed from the applicant's conduct rather than harassment or discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (dyslexia), claiming he was harassed by co-workers and subsequently terminated following a physical altercation.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars or evidence linking his termination or the alleged harassment to his disability, beyond mere speculation.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a list of witnesses, and a summary of anticipated evidence.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned and an extension of the deadline, the applicant did not file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.