HRTO 2016

The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to confirm her intention to appear at the scheduled hearing.

Having received no confirmation or communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and canceled the scheduled hearing.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant and to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued the applicant had filed 27 unsuccessful human rights applications in the past five years and that an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the current application.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the current application involved distinct facts and a different respondent, and that the ESA proceeding did not address the substantive allegations of discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario due to their counsel's vacation and other work commitments.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that counsel's vacation and scheduling conflicts did not constitute exceptional circumstances required to grant an adjournment outside the 14-day period.

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

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously settled an identical application at mediation, where the applicant signed a full and final release in exchange for a significant monetary payment.

The applicant sought to set aside the settlement, alleging she signed it under duress due to the mediator's conduct.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or coercion of the applicant's will, concluding that the mediator's explanations of litigation risks did not constitute illegitimate pressure.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, who alleged racial discrimination by a casino dealer, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of a security video, a telephone transcript, and prior incident reports regarding the dealer.

The respondent agreed the video was arguably relevant but raised privacy concerns regarding other patrons captured on tape.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested materials, imposing conditions that the applicant view the video at the respondent's counsel's office to protect privacy, and directing the redaction of names from any prior incident reports.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent school board discriminated against him but denied his request for special damages to cover the $144,559.42 cost of his private residential school education.

The applicant argued the Tribunal's decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved a matter of public importance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue the case and had not established any new, compelling, or extraordinary facts, nor any conflict with established jurisprudence, to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three requests for orders during proceedings brought by the respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' request to have witnesses testify by telephone, noting they were not required for the initial hearing dates.

The Tribunal excluded a news release about the organizational respondent's past convictions as irrelevant to the current proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce all documents related to his Employment Insurance claims, finding them arguably relevant to the remedies sought.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.

Despite requests from the respondent and a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal warning of potential dismissal, the applicant did not provide the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant brought two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his request for an extension to complete a nursing program was denied.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the two applications on consent.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for production of extension requests made by other students, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the applicant's family status-related needs were properly considered and accommodated.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing an internal sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker, requesting security measures, and filing a human rights application against a previous employer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had investigated and upheld the sexual harassment complaint, disciplined the co-worker, and accommodated the applicant's security requests.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination, which occurred 10.5 months later, was not a reprisal but was due to the applicant's unmanageable, insubordinate, and unprofessional behaviour in the workplace.

The application was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging race discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant submitted further documentation regarding the corporate respondent's recruitment policy but did not demonstrate that this was new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following absences related to a slip and fall injury and a miscarriage.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that these conditions were temporary and did not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that both the slip and fall injury, which took weeks to heal, and the miscarriage were not common or transitory ailments and constituted disabilities under the Code, regardless of whether they had resolved by the time of termination.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it discriminated against the applicant by terminating her employment while she was on medical leave, and awarded $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent argued the adjudicator denied it procedural fairness by refusing production requests and discounting evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the finding of discrimination, finding no bias or conflict with established jurisprudence.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration of the compensation award, finding the original adjudicator improperly increased the award to sanction the respondent for vigorously defending itself during the hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on quantum or schedule a new hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance arbitration proceeding dealing with the termination of the applicant's employment.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not address the issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal practice of deferring to grievance arbitration processes where there is substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues, as arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The respondent requested the production of the applicant's medical and employment records in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant opposed the request as untimely.

The Tribunal found the request was not premature as the deadline for disclosure of arguably relevant documents had passed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation, mitigation, and remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, disability, citizenship, and place of origin.

He claimed that while seeking emergency treatment at the respondent hospital, a registration clerk treated him poorly because he was from Quebec.

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

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding the hospital would be vicariously liable for their actions.

The Tribunal then dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere speculation to link the alleged poor treatment to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on multiple grounds, including disability, race, and sex.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to clarify the issues and determine if any allegations had no reasonable prospect of success or were barred by delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, finding they either had no reasonable prospect of success or were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's core allegation—that his employment was terminated because of his disability—to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to increase the monetary remedies claimed to $92,812.03 and to add UNIFOR as a respondent.

The respondent Quinte Healthcare Corporation took no position, and UNIFOR did not file submissions.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it was fair to add UNIFOR.

The Tribunal granted both requests, amending the monetary remedies and adding UNIFOR as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred on consent pending the completion of another proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a letter requesting a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond within 30 days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.