HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent infringed her rights.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply or communicate within seven days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The deadline passed without compliance or communication from the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on several procedural issues raised during a conference call.

The Tribunal excluded one of the applicant's proposed witnesses as the evidence amounted to inadmissible similar fact evidence, but permitted another witness to testify regarding her observations.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant portions of her medical and long-term disability files, as well as tax documents related to employment income.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the University of Windsor to produce the applicant's employment records to the parties.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and to file a Reply.

The applicant failed to comply with the directives within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Contravention of Settlement Application.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, alleging bias and disagreeing with procedural and evidentiary findings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The applicant argued that the decision should be reconsidered under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely repeated the same arguments made in her original application and failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the HPARB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated because she could no longer work overtime hours following a workplace wrist injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish she had a continuing disability known to the employer, or that her refusal to work overtime was a factor in her termination.

The employer provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, including significant invoicing errors and a negative attitude.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to institute a policy for investigating condominium rule violations.

Prior to the hearing, both parties requested to amend their pleadings to allege breaches of confidentiality clauses.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests to amend, finding they were filed late, raised entirely new issues, and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal also deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the Application for mootness to the hearing, and limited the scope of evidence to the specific contravention alleged in the original Application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on citizenship, marital status, and age, claiming that workplace break scheduling favoured a 'Facebook and Smoker elite' group.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, and reprisal after being asked to leave the respondent's store.

The respondent's employees accused the applicant of harassing another customer.

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 belief to link the respondent's actions to his race or colour, and made no allegations amounting to reprisal.

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

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm an intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded to the correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The applicant failed to provide a copy of the WSIAT decision as required by the Tribunal's rules and indicated he would not do so until consulting with the Ombudsman.

The Tribunal directed that it would not process the request to reactivate the application until the applicant provided a copy of the WSIAT decision.

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

The Tribunal issued notices to schedule hearing dates, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a warning that the application could be dismissed without further notice.

As the applicant could not be contacted and failed to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a Law Society of Upper Canada investigation.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times to inquire about the status of the investigation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

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

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law but provided no submissions to support this claim, instead restating his original evidence.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities.

A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination, the applicant sought to add a former representative of the respondents as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings, the applicant's previous confirmation that he did not wish to add her, and the absence of any issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy an alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal also provided directions for the continuation of the hearing, including addressing issues of absolute privilege and sections 45.1 and 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the WSIB and its employees based on allegedly insulting comments made during her work transition assessments.

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

The Tribunal found that, given the context of the WSIB employees' roles in assessing work transition and the plain meaning of the words used, there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the comments were objectively insulting or discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

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

A preliminary issue arose regarding the production of documents classified as controlled goods under the Defence Production Act.

Neither the parties' counsel nor a key witness were authorized to access the documents under the Controlled Goods Regulations.

Both parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal found that the inability to review arguably relevant documents constituted exceptional circumstances and granted the adjournment.

The respondents objected to the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2484 being granted intervenor status, arguing it was inappropriate while the application was deferred and the union was pursuing the same issues in another forum.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, noting that the application had been reactivated, removing the basis for the objection.

The scope of the union's involvement will be determined by the hearing adjudicator.