HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness information.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the materials were not filed by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or provide the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and disability, as well as harassment and reprisal in the form of termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the allegations should be dismissed for untimeliness, abuse of process, or lack of connection to the Code.

The Tribunal found that the family status allegations were timely and not subject to a formal settlement.

It also found sufficient evidence of a potential failure to accommodate a disability to warrant a full hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by Rogers Communications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on its own initiative, noting the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated service provider.

The applicant argued the respondent should be required to provide a full response under the Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that Rogers Communications is a federally regulated enterprise and therefore outside the Tribunal's provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

Neither the applicant nor their representative attended the hearing or provided an explanation for their absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to comply with timelines and delivery directions, and by failing to provide adequate confirmation of human rights training.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by delivering the settlement funds and documents late and to the wrong address, causing the applicant mental distress.

The Tribunal awarded $1,000 in damages for this breach.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's other claims, finding that the respondents had complied with the training confirmation requirements and that there was no basis to reopen the settlement or find that the applicant was coerced.

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 appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex regarding the calculation of her seniority hours, including during a pregnancy-related absence.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance proceeding was dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, and deferred the application to avoid conflicting findings of fact and duplication of proceedings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application to revoke Minutes of Settlement.

She alleged the mediator used undue influence and that she signed the settlement under duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration, noting that her arguments primarily consisted of factual disputes and disagreements with the adjudicator's characterization of her submissions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a bank, a real estate brokerage, and the law firm representing the bank in a mortgage dispute.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the law firm.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the conduct of a lawyer representing another party in a legal proceeding, and therefore no service relationship existed between the applicant and the law firm.

The application against the law firm was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 within the directed timeframe.

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 (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to educational services.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal declined to strike a disputed document as premature, ordered the respondent to provide particulars about it, and ordered the production of the applicant's Accessibility Services file.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondent to file late documents, directed the applicant to provide a full summary of its expert's proposed evidence, and excused the College President from attending the initially scheduled hearing dates.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application and sought further particulars regarding the applicant's allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as their actions were taken as employees managing the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding one specific allegation, but otherwise declined to order further particulars.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of her human rights applications due to an ongoing medical issue with her throat.

The Tribunal had previously accommodated the applicant by scheduling shorter, in-person hearing days at a location near her home.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to clarify her restrictions or justify an indefinite adjournment, and declined to participate in a conference call with her doctor and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request for an indefinite adjournment and ordered the applicant to confirm her intention to participate in the scheduled in-person hearing, failing which the applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age and receipt of public assistance.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant engaged in extensive correspondence disputing the proper respondents and requested adjournments, which were denied.

After being explicitly warned that failure to attend could result in dismissal, the applicant failed to call into the scheduled telephone hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process and declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant without proper notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in his dismissal from the respondent law firm.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had an ongoing civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts and seeking Code remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action had not been discontinued and sought remedies for Code infringement arising from the same facts.

Accordingly, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal more than one year after her resignation, which was the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the limitation period should run from the date settlement discussions broke down and noted she was out of the province for several months.

The Tribunal found that settlement discussions do not delay the commencement of the limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for May 6, 2016, because its counsel was sick with the flu.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of counsel constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay.

The applicant, a union steward, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability after a manager referred to his 'mental imbalance' in an email.

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

The Tribunal found that the single comment did not amount to discrimination under the Code and that the applicant could not link other alleged adverse treatment to the ground of disability.

The application was dismissed.

In an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, the respondents sought production of the applicant's clinical notes and records relating to workplace stress, as well as certain case notes.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the clinical notes of her treating professionals, including Dr. Vaidya, and established a procedure for identifying and producing the employer's confidential case notes.

The Tribunal also reviewed four pages of a social worker's notes and found them irrelevant.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' assertions that the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, cautioning counsel against making such allegations in correspondence rather than through a formal request.