HRTO 2016

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Goldcorp Canada Ltd. as a respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant, who alleged failure to accommodate her mould allergy, opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that it is up to the applicant to determine the respondents against whom she wishes to proceed, and she had made no allegations against Goldcorp.

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

The Tribunal erroneously deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings that had already been settled.

After almost two years, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The respondent objected, citing delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair and contrary to section 43(2)1 of the Human Rights Code to dispose of the application due to the Tribunal's own error in deferring it.

The request to reactivate was granted and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application, which alleged that the respondent hospital denied her medical services based on race and place of origin.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator ignored key facts, breached procedural fairness, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that disagreement with findings of fact or credibility does not warrant reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability in the termination of her employment.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was largely dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer and appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant factual overlap regarding the reasons for termination and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders for the production of documents and to amend her application to add the ground of disability and update her requested remedies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents, which related to wage increases, bonuses, and human resources policies, to be arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on pregnancy.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to bring the requested documents to the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant passed away after filing an application under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's counsel requested that the Tribunal hold the application in abeyance pending the appointment of an estate trustee.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance for four months, noting that it has no authority to proceed with an application on behalf of a deceased applicant without an appointed estate trustee.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought production of documents withheld by the respondent under the Defence Production Act.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the production of the controlled goods documents, directing the parties to make submissions on the Tribunal's authority to order their production in light of the Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed as premature the applicant's request to amend his witness list and documents up to the hearing date.

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

After being granted two adjournments for medical reasons, the Tribunal directed the applicant to contact the Tribunal and the respondents by a specified deadline to reschedule or request a further adjournment, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to contact the Tribunal by the deadline.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent, who was the Chair of the Board of the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and denied the request, finding that the applicant made allegations of conduct against the personal respondent that, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination and remedies against him personally.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because she was currently in China.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that while adjournments are typically only granted in exceptional circumstances, it was unclear whether the applicant had received the Notice of Hearing sent by mail.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested the removal of certain individuals as respondents.

The Tribunal reactivated the application, noting that the conclusion of related proceedings was not a reason to prevent reactivation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to remove the individuals, finding they were not actually named as parties to the application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had temporarily laid off its entire workforce due to financing issues, leaving its counsel without an instructing client.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the respondent's owner could instruct counsel and witnesses could be summoned.

The Tribunal found that the lack of an instructing client constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment to ensure natural justice and procedural fairness.

The adjournment was granted, with directions for rescheduling.

The respondent Lenscrafters brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to set aside previous Interim Decisions that deemed it to have accepted the allegations and waived participation for failing to file a Response.

The respondent argued it had not received the Notices of Application because they were sent to a store location rather than its corporate head office.

The Tribunal accepted this uncontradicted assertion, set aside the Interim Decisions, and directed the respondent to file its Response within 28 days.

The Tribunal also proposed consolidating the two related applications.

The respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to strike the applicant's Reply in its entirety.

The respondent argued the Reply was repetitive, contained improper arguments, and improperly raised a claim of defamation based on the respondent's pleadings.

The Tribunal found that the Reply properly raised one new issue regarding the thoroughness of the respondent's investigation, and allowed those portions to stand.

However, the Tribunal struck the defamation claim in its entirety, finding it was barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege which protects communications made during quasi-judicial proceedings.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking leave for the Chief of Police to file a Response, the removal of the individual respondent, and bifurcation of the hearing.

The applicant consented to the late filing of the Response but opposed the other requests.

The Tribunal granted leave to file the Response on consent.

The Tribunal denied the requests to remove the individual respondent and to bifurcate the hearing, finding both requests to be premature at this stage of the proceedings.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and recordings from the respondent college.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and ordered the respondent to produce an audio recording of specific voicemail messages, but denied the majority of the production requests on the basis of relevance or because the documents did not exist.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the ground of colour from her application, but deferred her requests to add a ground of sexual harassment and to have her brother assist in her representation to the commencement of the hearing.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of police services filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking particulars.

The adjudicator directed the applicant to provide as much detail as possible regarding allegations that police officers attended a dog park and made disparaging remarks about him to others.

The applicants, a student with a disability and her mother, requested an interim remedy requiring a school bus driver to assist with the student's safety harness, and requested to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the balance of convenience did not favour it as the student's father could currently assist.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to expedite the proceedings because the father would be unavailable in the upcoming school year, which could result in the student being denied transportation and access to school.

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

The respondents requested an order to dismiss four of the five allegations for delay, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegation.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations related to separate and independent incidents, including harassment prior to the injury and failure to accommodate during a previous contract, which were not connected to the timely allegation regarding a refusal to sign a certification form.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the earlier allegations.

The Tribunal declined to hold a summary hearing for the remaining allegation, directing it to proceed to a hearing on the merits.