HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of services because the respondent college purchased advertising time during a football game featuring a team with an allegedly offensive name.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no service relationship between the applicant and the respondent, as the applicant was not a student and the respondent merely purchased commercial advertising space during the broadcast.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration after her human rights application was dismissed as abandoned when neither party attended a scheduled teleconference.

The applicant explained that the respondent's counsel had previously requested a rescheduling, which the Tribunal had granted, but this information was not communicated to the adjudicator due to an administrative error.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, set aside the dismissal, and directed the parties to provide alternate dates for the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the employer failed to accommodate her.

A concurrent grievance was filed regarding the same accommodation issues, with arbitration scheduled.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the arbitration outcome.

The applicant objected, arguing the arbitration would not cover all issues or provide the same remedies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the arbitrator has jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and address the overlapping issues, avoiding the risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The application was originally deferred pending another proceeding, and was dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to a status update request.

The applicant claimed he did not receive the email requesting the update.

The Tribunal found that the email was sent to the address provided by the applicant and did not bounce back, and that the applicant had successfully received other emails at that address, including the dismissal decision itself.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent opposed the request because it was filed approximately a month after the 60-day period contemplated by Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the time requirements, granted the request to reactivate the application, and directed the respondent to file its Response and Request for Summary Hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the matter appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

The respondent Hospital brought preliminary requests to dismiss the Application against it, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and schedule a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding her accommodation and the transfer of her seniority between bargaining units.

The Tribunal denied the Hospital's requests, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the recognition of seniority and the complex issue of accommodation required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also noted that historical events were included only for context, making a dismissal for delay unnecessary.

The respondent filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis and allowed the applicant to amend the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision did not dispose of any central issues in the application and was therefore not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a school and an individual teacher, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual teacher as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep the individual as a respondent since the school board accepted liability for its employee's actions and there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any potential Code infringement.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to name the school board as the proper organizational respondent.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of an individual respondent, and a deferral to an ongoing Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request and the deferral request, finding no substantial overlap with the LTB matter concerning rental arrears.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, as the corporate respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and there was no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination pending the resolution of a union grievance and WSIB claims.

The respondent supported deferral, arguing the grievance overlapped with the application.

The applicant and the union opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found no substantial overlap, as the grievance related to the applicant's termination, while the application concerned harassment prior to termination.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered the respondent to file a response.

The applicant, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, filed an application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability in a printmaking class.

He filed a Request to Expedite the application, citing impending danger of serious health deterioration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the applicant's health issues constituted truly urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal slightly abridged the time for the respondent to file a response and directed the parties to immediately schedule an expedited mediation.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested it be on a 'with prejudice' basis.

The Tribunal, following established jurisprudence, declined to impose conditions and permitted the withdrawal without prejudice, noting the request was made well in advance of the hearing.

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

Following an interim decision that dismissed the applicant's allegations between 2012 and 2015, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the delay in filing her pre-2011 allegations.

The applicant failed to file the requested submissions and failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed requests to amend her human rights application and to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend in part, allowing new allegations regarding the back-to-work process but denying amendments related to a recent job posting to avoid prejudicing the respondent.

The request to expedite was denied, as the applicant's stress and financial situation did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence, especially given the impending hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

He claimed the respondent regulatory organization forwarded a record of complaints about his conduct to prospective employers, preventing him from gaining employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had never been convicted of an offence, and a record of complaints does not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences' under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with allegations of unfairness not grounded in a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add two respondents, amend the application to include the social area of goods and services, and add related allegations.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the application was at an early stage, mediation had not taken place, and the proposed new respondents did not object to being added.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The applicant claimed the grievance process had concluded.

The organizational respondent objected, providing evidence that arbitration proceedings related to the applicant's grievances were still ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding it premature as the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents issued a trespass notice against her at a courthouse specifically to exacerbate her PTSD.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that would establish a link between the issuance of the trespass notice and her disability.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.