HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness statements prior to the hearing.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

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

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested to defer the hearing of the merits of a human rights application pending the conclusion of its application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principle that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented or delayed by judicial review applications absent exceptional circumstances.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing after retaining counsel at a late date and failing to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure rules.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that late retention of counsel does not generally constitute exceptional circumstances.

However, the Tribunal granted a brief extension for the applicant to file and deliver hearing documents and witness statements.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of place of origin.

The applicant requested an adjournment by email two days before the scheduled summary hearing, citing personal reasons.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that detailed reasons were required for an adjournment and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

The applicant failed to respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to adopt a complaints policy within a reasonable time.

The settlement did not specify a timeline for implementation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent adopted the policy within five months, which was a reasonable timeline given the election of a new board and the need for legal review.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application 10 days after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to illness and technical issues with his personal computer.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting a lack of medical evidence to support the illness claim and the availability of alternative filing methods.

The application was dismissed on a preliminary basis for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

He argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that the failure to provide his medical records constituted a reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against him on the basis of race when it determined he was 100% liable for an automobile accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own subjective suspicion to link the liability determination to his race.

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

The applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions regarding the rescheduling of a hearing.

Despite being warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned under Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the applicant did not confirm his availability or provide alternative dates.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for abandonment and delay.

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to file a psychiatrist's report regarding his behaviour at the hearing, despite multiple extensions.

The Tribunal found that the psychiatrist's report eventually filed by the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal's directions, as it failed to address his capacity to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and delay, and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant, a gas station attendant, alleged she was terminated because of her sex (pregnancy) and family status.

The respondent failed to comply with disclosure rules and was barred from calling witnesses or presenting documentary evidence.

Despite this, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish discrimination.

The evidence showed her termination resulted from performance issues and a dispute over whether she had to pay for a customer's gas 'drive-off', rather than her recently discovered pregnancy, which the terminating manager was not proven to know about.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference, and the applicant was provided with notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to contact the Tribunal by a specified deadline to reschedule or adjourn the hearing.

However, evidence showed the applicant had sought medical confirmation regarding her ability to participate, demonstrating she did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and ordered the applicant to file detailed submissions regarding her ability to proceed with a hearing.

The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondent, a Human Resources manager, from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions, which were carried out in the course of her employment.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the Tribunal's established principles, the adjudicator found no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party and granted the request to remove her.

The applicant, a volunteer scrutineer for a political leadership campaign, alleged discrimination based on disability after being asked to leave a polling station shortly after raising accessibility concerns.

The matter was referred to a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's volunteer work could potentially fall under the protected areas of services or employment under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, there was circumstantial evidence that could link the adverse treatment to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed.

The applicant, a former political candidate for the respondent party, alleged discrimination and reprisal after being excluded from a meeting and subsequently facing sexual harassment allegations from a volunteer.

The applicant claimed the party conspired to fabricate the allegations to ruin his political career.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding the applicant's claims were based on pure speculation and had no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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 a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent, while also pursuing an action in Small Claims Court based on overlapping facts and issues.

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

Finding a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, pregnancy, family status, and reprisal after her employment was terminated following complications with her second pregnancy.

She also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) seeking reinstatement and compensation.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA proceedings.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding a significant possibility of overlapping issues and factual determinations between the two proceedings.