HRTO 2016

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application because the matter was the subject of a concurrent union grievance arbitration procedure under a collective agreement.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the grievance was a policy grievance that did not solely affect her.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the application overlapped with the grievance proceeding, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal, including an allegation that he was terminated for seeking to enforce his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that amending the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of adjudicating the dispute, and issued procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging that the respondents, who were unrelated employers, were involved in an elaborate criminal conspiracy and 'employment fraud' after he was denied interviews or not contacted.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the application described events unrelated to the respondents, contained offensive language, and alleged a criminal conspiracy controlled by the government or a terrorist cell.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding it was plain and obvious that the issues did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance filed by the intervenor on behalf of the applicant.

The respondent and intervenor supported deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the facts or law.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to a medical condition, which the Tribunal denied for lack of sufficient medical documentation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for production and particulars as premature.

The Tribunal directed that the preliminary hearing would address whether a personal respondent should be removed, whether a new application falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the issues raised fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to this jurisdictional issue by filing a Form 11.

The applicant failed to file the form by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

After the Tribunal contacted the applicant to inquire about her intentions, she indicated she was too busy to take time off work and did not respond to further inquiries.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested to re-activate his deferred human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The application had been deferred pending the resolution of an appeal to the Divisional Court.

As the Divisional Court proceeding was completed, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered the respondent to file a response.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss portions of the applicant's human rights application as untimely, arguing they related to discrete incidents occurring more than one year prior to filing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations of harassment, poisoned work environment, reprisals, and termination shared a common theme.

The Tribunal concluded the events constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, with the last incident occurring within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The application had previously been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

As the grievance was withdrawn and the respondent did not contest the request, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal issues by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against York University and its employee, Jennifer Dalton.

The applicant requested that the applications be consolidated and the upcoming hearing adjourned.

The respondents agreed to the consolidation and adjournment but also requested that the first application be dismissed as abandoned because the applicant missed a deadline to confirm her in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, accepting the applicant's explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications and adjourned the hearing to allow pleadings to close and mediation to occur.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5, and directed the respondent to indicate willingness to mediate.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by a client of the respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal found that the application should not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as there were factual and legal disputes requiring a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of the client's log books, investigation notes, employment contracts, and workplace policies, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, subject to redactions for privacy.

In an interim decision following a case management meeting, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to produce certain emails and texts concerning the applicant up to the date of the Application.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents created after the Application date, noting the applicant must first seek permission to amend her Application to add allegations of continuing reprisals.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act precludes the production of documents from a related disciplinary proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the City of Mississauga.

She argued the City breached its duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate her complaint of discrimination regarding a taxi service, and that the Tribunal breached natural justice by not holding a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the City was not in an employment or service relationship with the applicant, but merely enforcing its by-laws, and therefore the allegations were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services and facilities.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing without explanation, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's history of filing numerous meritless applications against various respondents and her inappropriate conduct during proceedings.

Applying the established factors, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring her to obtain leave before commencing any future applications at the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent union grievance dealing with the same subject matter was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent and the union supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids duplicative proceedings and conflicting decisions.

The applicant, a temporary seasonal employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed his manager refused to sign a Ministry of the Environment form required for a drinking water operator certificate because of a previous workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the manager refused to sign the form because the applicant had not accumulated the required hours of operating experience and the form contained inaccurate information.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant's injury was a factor in the manager's decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the property manager as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The respondents did not file a response.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth and the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found it appropriate to add the proposed respondent, as the application alleged he issued a trespass notice against the applicant, which was a central issue in the proceedings.

The request was granted.