HRTO 2016

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application at a preliminary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that she was not properly heard during the teleconference hearing and objected to the procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions were essentially reiterations of her previous positions and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d).

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates after discharging his previous counsel and retaining new counsel shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that this was the applicant's second adjournment request and that retaining new counsel who is unavailable for scheduled dates does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled, with medical evidence deferred pending a formal request for disclosure of clinical notes.

The applicant in a human rights complaint filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking the production of further documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing on the merits had already commenced and the deadline for document disclosure had passed.

Furthermore, a Summary Hearing had been scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, for which no evidence was to be produced.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as it was out of time.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

He claimed that a Probation and Parole Officer falsely indicated he had a gang affiliation, which led the Children's Aid Society to revoke his community access to his daughter.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a nexus between the Officer's provision of information and the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

In this interim human rights decision, the Tribunal considered whether the applications disclosed a service relationship between the self-represented applicant and various respondents arising from disputes about the care and spiritual practices of the applicant’s mother in a nursing home.

The Tribunal held that the Public Guardian and Trustee employees were not providing services to the applicant, but were acting in the context of adversarial guardianship litigation, so the application against them was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the Tribunal’s framework on unnecessary personal respondents, the Tribunal added the corporate nursing home operator as respondent and removed the individual employees, finding no compelling juridical reason to keep them.

The application against the corporate nursing home respondent was allowed to continue because it was arguable that services had been offered to the applicant while she acted under a power of attorney.

The applicant, a tenant with a mobility impairment, alleged discrimination based on disability after being denied a parking space close to his building.

The respondents claimed parking was not included in the lease and required an additional fee.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of parking could constitute an adverse impact due to disability-related needs, and the respondents may have failed in their procedural duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

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

The respondent filed a response requesting early dismissal and subsequently filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request or to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights Application to include details about her departure from the workplace and a claim for wage loss.

Two of the respondents consented to the amendments, while the third did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of a scheduled hearing date.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy).

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the application was at a very early stage, the amendments primarily reframed the initial incidents, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent.

During a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant presented a written offer to settle, which the respondent orally accepted.

The applicant later claimed there was no settlement, arguing he withdrew his offer, was under duress, and lacked medical capacity to understand the terms.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached, as the essential terms were agreed upon and the applicant intended to form a settlement.

The applicant failed to prove he withdrew the offer or that he was incapacitated or coerced.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process in light of the binding settlement.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent, the CEO and president of the corporate respondent, from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment termination.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the individual respondent was alleged to be the primary decision-maker who terminated the applicant, not merely an instrument of the corporation.

Furthermore, the corporate respondent's disclosed financial difficulties raised concerns about its ability to remedy any potential Code violation.

The Tribunal declined to remove the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add the grounds of marital status and association with a person with a disability.

The respondent consented to the amendments.

Applying the test for amendments, the Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent given the consent, the nature of the amendments, and the timing relative to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times to inquire about the status of the other proceeding and whether she intended to proceed against the corporate respondent after the personal respondent passed away.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiries.

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

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

The applicant argued that her application was timely and referred to previous court decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely rearguing her case and did not present new facts or evidence, nor did she show that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request for production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision did not finally dispose of any central issues in the application and was therefore not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The Tribunal was subsequently advised that the applicant had passed away.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant's estate requesting confirmation of an authorized estate trustee to proceed with the application.

The estate failed to respond 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.

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited thirty minutes and, receiving no explanation for the absence, dismissed the application as abandoned.

The parties agreed to resolve the human rights application and filed a Form 25 requesting a consent order under s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, which included the Crown retracting a letter, acknowledging the applicant and others as members of the local Sault Ste Marie Métis community based on a prior court decision, and dismissing all other aspects of the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The applicant argued he had faxed the application within the time limit and had not received notice that it was filed late.

The Tribunal found the applicant had received multiple notices regarding the late filing and provided no credible evidence of the alleged fax.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.