HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

In its response, the respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its business, which involves interprovincial and international trucking, is federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties each filed applications alleging the other breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to immediately examine partnering with the Township for parking by-law enforcement.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached confidentiality by discussing the settlement with the Mayor and a Township employee.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding the respondent took appropriate steps to implement the agreement and the applicant did not disclose confidential information or did so with the respondent's waiver.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The Notice of Hearing had been sent months prior with no indication it was not received.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled for May 19, 2016.

The applicant requested an extension two days prior, which was denied, and the applicant was informed the issue could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

At the start of the scheduled hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment due to their counsel's alleged heart condition.

Another lawyer from the firm appeared and produced a vague medical note.

Despite serious concerns about the note and the prejudice to the applicant, whose doctor had cancelled appointments to testify, the Tribunal reluctantly granted the adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered a case management call to expeditiously reschedule the hearing and directed that the file be reassigned if counsel remained unavailable.

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 application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as it related to the conduct of a lawyer and an adjudicator in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was incomplete and potentially outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or provide the requested information within the specified timeframes.

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

The applicants, who were either spouses of ODSP recipients or former recipients who became spouses of non-recipients, alleged that the ODSP income support rules discriminated against them on the basis of marital status, family status, sex, sexual orientation, and association with a person with a disability.

They argued that including spousal income to determine ODSP eligibility merged their legal personalities and deprived them of procedural safeguards available under the Family Law Act.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the ODSPA and FLA serve different purposes, and that considering spousal support obligations to determine eligibility for a social assistance program of last resort is not discriminatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university for failing to nominate him for a Canada Research Chair.

Prior to the application, the applicant filed a consolidated grievance addressing the same allegations.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Finding that the grievance dealt with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an interim order for the production of various documents from the respondent City of Ottawa and third-party police records.

The Tribunal ordered the third-party Ottawa Police Service to produce witness statements and notes related to the specific incident, as they were arguably relevant and the police consented.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymized copies of all Trespass to Property Notices issued by the respondent over the past 3 to 5 years, finding the request overly broad, speculative, and a fishing expedition.

The scheduled hearing dates were converted to mediation/adjudication due to outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the hearing, the respondent indicated that the named respondent, Mary-Am Group, was not a registered corporate entity.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove Mary-Am Group and add three interconnected corporations as respondents.

Applying the common employer doctrine, the Tribunal found sufficient interconnectedness among the proposed respondents to support a potential finding of liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the non-legal entity and adding the three corporations as respondents.

The applicant filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking further production of documents and permission to call two medical witnesses, with one testifying by telephone.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to answer specific questions regarding the existence of the requested documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for Dr. Ouchterlony to testify by telephone, finding her evidence regarding the applicant's capacity to attend university too important and complex for teleconference.

The Tribunal also denied the request to call Dr. Warriner, as his 2015 neuropsychological report was not before the respondent when it made its 2013 admissions decision and was therefore irrelevant.

The respondents requested permission to use a court reporter to record the upcoming hearing and sought a waiver of the requirement to provide transcripts to the other parties and the Tribunal due to cost.

The Tribunal allowed the use of a court reporter but denied the waiver, ordering the respondents to provide transcripts at their own expense prior to final argument to ensure all parties have access to the most accurate record.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents' lack of objection to one expert witness and deferred a decision on their objection to another expert witness until the hearing.

The Tribunal, on its own motion, reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the application for abandonment.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application after the applicant failed to communicate by a specified deadline regarding her ability to participate in a hearing.

However, the Tribunal later discovered that a letter seeking a medical adjournment had been faxed shortly after the deadline but before the dismissal decision was released.

Concluding that the application had not been abandoned, the Tribunal reconsidered the dismissal and ordered the applicant to provide medical documentation supporting her request for an adjournment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to attend a family wedding out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to make the request within the required 14-day period and that attending a wedding did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a late adjournment.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide witness statements for three additional witnesses by a specified deadline, failing which they may not be permitted to testify.

In an application alleging age discrimination in the respondent school board's failure to hire the applicant for acting and permanent Department Head positions, the applicant sought production of various documents.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered the respondent to disclose the successful candidate's age and application materials, subject to privacy redactions.

The Tribunal denied requests for information regarding unsuccessful candidates and historical hiring data, finding them not arguably relevant.

Requests for documents relating to the International Baccalaureate program and the applicant's personnel files were deferred to the hearing.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending an Employment Standards proceeding.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved in the applicant's favour by the Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Employment Standards process constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that proceedings against the respondent are stayed pursuant to s. 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal whether she intends to bring a motion in court to lift the stay, failing which the application would likely be deemed abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including her complete personnel file, supervisory files, and medical files.

The respondent objected to producing the complete files, arguing they were not relevant or did not exist.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the respondent to produce documents from the personnel and supervisory files for the specific timeframe of the alleged discrimination, as well as relevant internal job applications and Manulife files.

The request was otherwise denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and several individuals.

The applicant had previously signed two settlement agreements with the corporate respondent, both containing full and final releases.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the allegations covered by the 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process, rejecting the applicant's arguments that he lacked capacity or signed under duress.

The Tribunal further held that the remaining allegations were untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add Great West Life as a respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.