HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file hearing materials.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The application was initially filed on behalf of the applicant by another individual under s. 34(5) of the Human Rights Code.

As that individual is no longer involved, the Tribunal issued an interim decision amending the style of cause to reflect that the applicant is now the sole applicant.

The applicant, a black man of African origin, alleged racial discrimination in employment after being excluded from a collaborative pilot project by the respondent organizations.

The respondents claimed the exclusion was due to the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the unworkability of the arrangement.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the factual disputes regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion required a full hearing to resolve.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his corporation, alleging discrimination based on disability and family status.

He argued that the corporation was discriminated against because it is poor, asserting that poverty is a disability, and challenged various court rules and limitation periods that distinguish between personal and corporate litigants.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding that a corporation cannot have a physical or mental impairment, poverty is not a recognized ground of discrimination under the Code, and the distinctions complained of relate to corporate status rather than a prohibited ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by her employer and union.

Prior to the application, the union had filed a grievance on her behalf raising the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievance was filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and that the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant failed to file hearing documents and witness statements by the extended deadline of March 18, 2016, despite a warning from the Tribunal that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application.

The application had previously been deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent civil action due to a substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The applicant argued that an Affidavit of Documents from the civil action demonstrated no overlap.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was still ongoing and the risk of inconsistent findings remained.

The request to reactivate was denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by the respondent's employees.

Prior to filing its Response, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars regarding the names of management and other employees referenced in the application.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that the application contained sufficient information to enable the respondent to prepare its Response, and ordered the respondent to file its Response within 21 days.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the late disclosure of the applicant's expert report, arguing they needed time to retain their own expert.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing would require multiple days and the expert's testimony could be held over.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondents' concerns could be addressed by delaying the applicant's expert testimony to a subsequent hearing date, and thus extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment were not established.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it denied him full benefits for a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction questioning its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding that it does not have the jurisdiction to review decisions made under statutory benefit programs to determine if they are correct.

The applicant requested the production of an unredacted version of a third e-mail exchanged between the respondent and Great West Life regarding her short-term disability application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the e-mail formed part of a chain with two other e-mails previously ordered produced in an earlier interim decision.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought multiple requests for interim orders, including requests to amend the application, compel document production, and order the respondent to translate documents.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to increase the damages claimed and add a new remedy, as the respondent did not object.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add new reprisal allegations due to a lack of supporting details.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce its arguably relevant documents but declined to order the translation of Chinese correspondence.

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

The applicant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly required an 'intent to discriminate' in its original decision.

The Tribunal clarified that intent is not required and found that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin, arising from the repeated use of a racial slur in two newspaper columns published by the respondents.

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

Following written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the content of a newspaper is not a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that parts of the Application be dismissed as untimely, as they referred to events occurring more than one year prior to filing.

During a case conference, the applicant confirmed she was only proceeding with allegations that occurred on or after April 20, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the parts of the Application involving incidents prior to that date.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to serve and file documents and witness statements relevant to the narrowed issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of creed, family status, and reprisal against a children's aid society and one of its workers.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints primarily related to her disagreement with court decisions denying her access to her children, and she failed to point to any evidence beyond her own speculation that the respondents' actions were linked to the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to multiple directions from the Tribunal to provide written submissions and confirm that his new mailing address had been provided to the respondents.

After several warnings that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant failed to communicate by the final deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application on the day of the hearing in order to commence a civil action.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was an abuse of process given the resources spent preparing for the hearing, and requested that any withdrawal be with prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw the application, but ordered that it be with prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a new application regarding the same issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to file a Reply.

The applicant submitted medical documentation and a list of personal difficulties, but failed to explain how these prevented him from communicating with the Tribunal by the deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and denied the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, sex, and reprisal by a children's aid society regarding its handling of his child custody and protection concerns.

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 perceptions to link the respondents' actions to his race or gender.

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