HRTO 2016

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of time to file hearing documents, citing serious medical issues and the recent retention of a representative.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as required by its Practice Direction, noting the lack of medical documentation and the long history of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted a brief extension of time for the applicant to file his hearing documents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned after the self-represented applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and comply with pre-hearing disclosure directions.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending her WSIB claims.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that while the applicant's conduct was concerning, she appeared genuinely confused about the process rather than intentionally flouting the rules.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, as there was no active WSIB proceeding to defer to, and issued peremptory directions for the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested an interim remedy to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel's firm had previously been retained by a corporate entity involving one of the applicants ten years prior.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was based on pure supposition with no evidence that current counsel had any involvement or communication regarding the decade-old matter.

The applicant's employment was terminated and she signed a Full and Final Release as part of a settlement agreement, which explicitly included a release of any claims under the Human Rights Code.

She subsequently filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing in writing and dismissed the Application as an abuse of process, finding that the parties had settled the Code-related issues and the applicant had explicitly agreed not to bring such an Application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to a recent fire, personal issues, and a pending court motion for documents.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the recent fire constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also ordered the anonymization of the applicant's name to comply with the Child and Family Services Act.

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

Despite receiving multiple notices and confirming his attendance, the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

After granting a 30-minute grace period and an additional 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, family status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had already filed a claim in Small Claims Court against the respondents raising substantially similar issues.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits a person from seeking remedies for human rights violations in both a court and the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing, his lawyer dropped his case, and a friend helping him had a family emergency.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received notice via a Case Assessment Direction, to which he had responded by filing documents.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish grounds for reconsideration and dismissed the request.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents regarding training completed by other employees and an affidavit from a WSIB contractor.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the training documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request for the affidavit, noting the document did not exist and the individual would need to be summoned as a witness, subject to compellability rules under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against his employer and union.

The original decision found that a labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the application of s. 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the original decision correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Figliola and subsequent Tribunal jurisprudence.

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

He argued that the decision was delayed, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, ignored evidence, and that he had submitted video evidence that the Tribunal claimed was not filed.

The Tribunal found no grounds for reconsideration, noting that the delay did not render the hearing unfair, the bias allegations were merely disagreements with the findings, and the video evidence was neither newly obtained nor determinative of the case.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent restaurant discriminated against her on the basis of sex by terminating her employment as a cashier due to her pregnancy.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to a reorganization of the cashier position to include salad preparation duties, which the applicant could not perform because she lacked a food handler's certificate.

The Tribunal first determined that a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while there were some concerns with the respondent's evidence, the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that her pregnancy or accommodation needs were a factor in the termination.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the respondents requested the disclosure of the applicant's medical records to understand the basis for his medical restrictions.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, consented to the disclosure of relevant clinical notes from his treating psychiatrist and family doctor.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the records from January 2011 to the present, subject to redaction of non-relevant entries by the doctors, and scheduled a telephone conference to address further case management issues.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services based on age and disability regarding the amount of government benefits (OAS, CPP, and GAINS) received after turning 65.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the federal government regarding OAS and CPP, as it lacks jurisdiction over federal entities.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the provincial government regarding GAINS payments, finding it was not plain and obvious that section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code barred the claim at this preliminary stage.

The applicant, a casual employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status when the respondent school board did not credit her with seniority for periods she was on maternity leave.

Under the collective agreement, casual employees do not accrue seniority until they become regular employees, at which point they are credited based on actual days worked.

The Tribunal found no discrimination, distinguishing the situation from full-time employees who accrue seniority by the passage of time.

For casual employees, who have no guarantee of hours and can refuse work, seniority is directly linked to the active performance of work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

When both parties failed to comply, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, gender identity, and record of offences.

The applicant had also filed a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act regarding her termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding financial hardship, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, noting the substantial factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal prior to the commencement of the hearing due to health reasons.

The respondent requested that the withdrawal be granted on a 'with prejudice' basis, noting the significant resources expended in preparation and the applicant's history of filing applications.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal with prejudice, barring the applicant from filing future applications relating to the same incidents, citing the need to dispose of applications fairly and the prejudice to the respondent and the Tribunal's resources.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing because the personal respondent had family visiting from out of the country.

The applicant objected, noting she had deferred her licensing exam to attend the hearing and had already contacted witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a family visit does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and supervisor.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the high threshold for economic duress and dismissed the application against the corporate respondent as an abuse of process.

The application against the personal respondent was allowed to proceed to a summary hearing, as the release did not explicitly cover individuals.