HRTO 2016

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed on the applicant's behalf and referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

In an interim decision regarding Requests for Orders During Proceedings, the Tribunal addressed motions for document production and dismissal of allegations.

The respondents' request to dismiss older allegations as untimely was denied, as the Tribunal found the allegations formed a series of incidents thematically connected to sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce internal investigation materials, the applicant's professional standards file, and particulars regarding a photograph, finding them arguably relevant.

The respondents' requests for the applicant to produce SIU materials and text messages were denied, though the respondents were permitted to audio-record the hearing at their own expense.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the issues were dealt with in a child protection trial.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming his children were not permitted to practice their Islamic faith while in foster care.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped with the child protection proceeding, which was currently under appeal.

To avoid inconsistent results, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the appeal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process due to a signed full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts, evidence, or other factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal sent a letter requesting a status update and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the 30-day timeframe.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex after she was allegedly assaulted and threatened by a customer at her workplace.

She claimed the police and her employer failed to take her allegations seriously.

The respondent employer requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal regarding whether a traumatic event actually occurred.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the issues before the WSIB and the Tribunal, and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB appeal process.

The respondent requested an order to remove a partially redacted email from the Tribunal file, arguing that as a health information custodian under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, it had an obligation to protect client privacy.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing no personal health information was disclosed.

The Tribunal found the client's name was not relevant to the issues in the Application and ordered the non-redacted copy replaced with a fully redacted version.

The Randstad respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent Sarah Feere from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was liable for the conduct, there was no issue concerning vicarious liability, and there were no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the personal respondent.

The request was granted and Sarah Feere was removed as a respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and the remedy sought.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting it was made in a timely manner and unopposed.

The Tribunal also noted that deferral was no longer an issue as the applicant had withdrawn her related Ministry of Labour complaint, and addressed a correction to the corporate respondent's legal name.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent union grievance proceeding raised the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its normal approach.

The parties made joint requests to file amended pleadings and to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The applicant also requested costs, which the Tribunal denied on the basis that it lacks the statutory authority to award costs.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the timely allegation regarding a September 2014 email had no reasonable prospect of success and that the remaining allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the email allegation at the preliminary stage, finding that the respondent's explanation required evidence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of incidents occurring between 2000 and 2009 due to delay, as the gaps in time were too significant to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The July 2013 allegation was permitted to proceed pending further evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational respondent and five personal respondents.

The organizational respondent requested to defer the application pending the completion of a related union grievance and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the grievance and the application.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud criteria, as the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability and there were no allegations of individual harassment.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the named individual respondents and to require the applicant to disclose the identity and willsay statement of a witness identified as 'John Doe'.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove one individual respondent whose conduct was not central to the case, but denied the request to remove the other two individual respondents pending evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose the witness information.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate a disability, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events from 2008 and 2009 were untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and could not form part of the application.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' preliminary request for an order requiring the applicant to produce his treating doctors for cross-examination, deferring the issue of the weight to be given to medical reports until after the applicant's evidence is heard.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a personal respondent, add the ground of reprisal, and amend her remedial request to $50,000 for general damages and lost wages.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found it appropriate to add the personal respondent, as he allegedly made a discriminatory comment and could be found to have violated the Code.

The Tribunal also granted the requests to add the ground of reprisal and amend the remedy, noting no prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for April 6 and 7, 2016, due to a serious family emergency involving its senior counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the senior counsel was not the counsel of record and seeking costs.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the family emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances under its Practice Direction, and declined to sanction the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response after retaining new counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it was made early in the proceedings, related directly to the issues in dispute, and caused no prejudice or delay to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application and directed the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent warning letter.

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