HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and disability regarding a hiring process conducted by the Public Service Commission of Canada for a position with Employment and Social Development Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the matter falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction and outside the scope of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by a funeral home and an individual respondent regarding funeral arrangements for her son in 2010.

The application was filed in 2016, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that she could not focus for the first year and subsequently pursued other avenues for redress—did not constitute a good faith explanation under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as untimely and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay money agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

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

Applying its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A telephone conference call hearing was scheduled to determine the alleged contravention and request for additional compensation.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a 30-day adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing it believed the applicant did not intend to pursue the Application and that certain medical documents had not been produced.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are not automatically granted and require exceptional circumstances, which the respondent failed to demonstrate.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with any outstanding production issues to be addressed at that time.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent hospital, claiming he was seen by a fake doctor who prescribed him a high dose of medication as part of a conspiracy to make him lose a prior human rights application.

He also alleged reprisal through the denial of his medical records.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could point to no evidence linking the alleged events to his race, colour, or ethnic origin, nor any evidence of reprisal.

In a human rights application regarding the use of Indigenous names and images by sports organizations, several organizations and one individual filed requests to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the requests of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and three local hockey organizations, finding they had a significant interest and would not unduly delay the proceeding.

The request of an individual was denied for failing to explain his significant interest or special contribution.

The Tribunal also directed that notice be given to specific First Nations organizations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had a concurrent Small Claims Court action involving some of the same parties.

The applicant submitted that the human rights application involved claims of reprisal and discrimination that occurred after the Small Claims Court action was filed.

The Tribunal found that the claims in the application were not the same as those in the civil action and declined to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking reasons for the Tribunal granting the respondents' request to reschedule the hearing, an order for unbound copies of documents, and a meeting to discuss accommodation procedures.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request, finding the rescheduling request was timely, the provision of documents in a binder was reasonable, and the applicant had not articulated specific accommodation needs.

The applicant was directed to respond to previous Tribunal correspondence regarding hearing dates, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to an urgent medical situation involving her counsel's immediate family member, as well as the applicant's own need to travel out of the country to attend to a very ill family member.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal found these to be extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment and granted the request, directing the Registrar to reschedule the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, after the respondent rejected her request to establish a scholarship for LGBT youth at its annual awards ceremony.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing it did not provide a service and that there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the issue of whether the respondent provided a 'service' under the Human Rights Code required a full evidentiary record, and that conflicting facts and credibility issues precluded a finding of no reasonable prospect of success.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a merits hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law in interpreting s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, which the Tribunal had relied on to find that a caution issued by the respondent's committee could not be admitted as an incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and that the proposed reconsideration did not involve a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex.

After waiting past the usual commencement time and receiving no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The request was filed almost three months late, which the applicant attributed to his original request being lost in the mail.

The Tribunal found that even if the delay was in good faith, the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request merely repeated previous allegations and did not present new evidence or demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicants filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Stock Transportation as a respondent, alleging discrimination when the bus driver refused to assist in attaching a safety harness.

The respondent school board filed a request to remove the Toronto Student Transportation Group as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Stock Transportation, finding the allegations could support a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the transportation group, finding it was a separate entity that coordinates bussing and may be subject to a specific remedial order if the application is successful.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability (medical marijuana use) against his landlord and its agents, primarily related to eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations at the outset of the hearing, finding that the respondents' actions and statements in the legal proceedings were protected by absolute privilege.

Following this ruling and an unsuccessful mediation attempt, the applicant left the hearing room and did not return.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the applications and dismissed them in their entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process because he had signed a full and final release upon his employment termination.

The applicant argued that the preliminary hearing process was unfair and that the Tribunal's findings regarding fraudulent misrepresentation were flawed.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a resident of a mobile home park who has a physical disability, alleged discrimination with respect to accommodation when the respondents refused to allow a gas line installation to his unit and failed to clear the snow windrow at his driveway.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to point to evidence showing that the respondents' actions imposed an additional burden or disadvantage on him due to his disability, as he was responsible for clearing his own driveway and had alternative heating options available.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal regarding scheduling a summary hearing.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Having received no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application for abandonment.

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

The applicant alleged continued attacks by police informants and attempted to reargue his case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and dismissed the request.

The parties agreed to resolve a human rights application regarding accessibility accommodations for a student.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, requiring the school board to implement an Accessibility Best Practices Policy and Procedure, review policies to address age and size barriers, and direct its facilities department to consider barrier-free access for small children in new facilities or major renovations.