HRTO 2016

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for failure to attend the hearing.

He claimed he was unaware he was supposed to attend.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the claim lacked credibility because the applicant had received a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction, and had filed documents in response shortly before the hearing date.

The Tribunal concluded there were no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the personal respondent illegally photographed his driver's licence and wrongly involved the police to cover up wrongdoing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the original decision was not in conflict with established jurisprudence and there were no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging that a previous settlement agreement was signed under duress and should be set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over such applications where there is an allegation that a term of the settlement has been breached.

Because the applicant did not allege a breach, the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $4,500 as agreed in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent issued a cheque but subsequently placed a stop payment on it, causing the applicant's bank account to become overdrawn and resulting in stress and anxiety.

The respondent did not file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding $4,500, plus $750 in compensation for the injury to the applicant's dignity and self-worth caused by the breach, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a request for the production of police camera footage from April 2014 and May 2016 after the first day of the hearing.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the 2014 request was untimely and that no footage existed for either date due to a 72-hour retention policy.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding that the footage no longer existed and that the request for the 2014 footage was untimely.

The applicant, a housekeeper, alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents maintained that the applicant voluntarily resigned after taking time off for illness related to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not terminate the applicant's employment, noting that the parties continued to act as though the employment relationship existed until the applicant requested her Record of Employment.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she experienced adverse treatment.

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

On the last business day before the scheduled hearing, the applicant filed a Request to Withdraw the Application, citing financial reasons.

The respondent objected, arguing the late withdrawal was an abuse of process, especially since the applicant had recently filed a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process and granted the request to withdraw, but ordered that the withdrawal be with prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a new application regarding the same issues.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Case Assessment Direction warning of the consequences.

The Tribunal noted that while the respondent's principal had filed for personal bankruptcy, the corporate respondent had not and was not protected by the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

As the corporate respondent failed to respond, the Tribunal deemed it to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived its right to participate further.

A conference call was scheduled for the applicant to make submissions on the breach and remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on ancestry, colour, and ethnic origin regarding the use of the Cleveland baseball team's name and "Chief Wahoo" logo during games and broadcasts in Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending another proceeding.

The Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate because an injunction application had already been decided and a related federal human rights complaint raised jurisdictional issues that needed to be resolved first.

The Tribunal issued directions and a schedule for the parties to make submissions on the preliminary jurisdictional issues.

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

The request was filed beyond the 30-day time limit, and the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's procedural rules, including failing to provide a Statement of Delivery to confirm the respondents were notified.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the delay was due to the applicant's failure to update his contact information and that he failed to establish any new facts or other criteria justifying reconsideration.

The applicant, a nurse whose license was suspended by the Ontario College of Nurses, filed a human rights application against the Human Resources Professional Association (HRPA) and its counsel, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The HRPA had disciplined the applicant for failing to disclose the College's finding on her annual information return.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that sections 65 and 66 of the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act barred the proceeding absent bad faith, which was not alleged, and prevented the admission of necessary evidence.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add the College as a respondent because those allegations had been dismissed in a previous application.

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

He argued that the Tribunal failed to address a $5,000 shortfall allegedly owed by the respondents from the sale of a franchise business.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case and that it lacks jurisdiction to address pure contract disputes or payment shortfalls absent a proven breach of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application and an order to seal the record, close hearings to the public, and anonymize the title of proceedings to protect the identity of a child involved in child protection proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request for a sealing order, closed hearings, and anonymization pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal also directed that a summary/preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or because the substance was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to medical issues and an inability to secure legal representation.

The applicant provided a medical note confirming his health concerns, and the respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to accommodate the applicant's medical condition, subject to the applicant providing updated medical information by a specified date.

The Tribunal noted that lack of counsel alone is not a valid reason for an adjournment.

The applicant's additional request for an order for production of documents was denied as premature in light of the adjournment.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding regarding his termination.

The reactivation request was filed past the 60-day deadline, and the applicant's paralegal failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to justify the delay.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held that the application would be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the OLRB had already determined that the sole cause of the applicant's termination was wilful misconduct, thereby precluding the human rights claims.

Allegations regarding earlier discriminatory comments were also dismissed as being out of time.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed the human rights application in part.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(a) and (c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure but failed to identify new facts or explain how the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was improperly attempting to appeal the assessment of evidence.

Finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondents' school was over-monitoring him after he filed the initial application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments were linked to the original allegations, the request was filed well ahead of the hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on race and related grounds, specifically citing discriminatory name-calling by a supervisor.

Instead of filing a Response, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking extensive access to the applicant's medical records from the employer's occupational health file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as entirely without merit, finding that the medical records were largely irrelevant to the primary issue of name-calling and that the lack of such records did not prevent the respondents from meaningfully responding to the Application.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 14 days.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, her application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration, explaining she had started a new job and forgot the hearing date.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that forgetting a hearing date due to a new job does not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.