HRTO 2016

The applicant failed to file hearing materials or confirm her attendance at the scheduled hearing, despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, related to the respondent's alleged breach of its re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal.

The respondent subsequently advised the Tribunal that it would not continue its WSIB appeal.

Finding that the WSIB proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal ordered the human rights application reactivated and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their human rights applications as abandoned after they failed to attend a teleconference hearing.

The applicant claimed she missed the hearing due to a sudden medical flare-up and provided a doctor's note dated three and a half weeks after the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for not notifying the Tribunal sooner and that the delayed medical note was insufficient to establish she was too incapacitated to call in or seek earlier medical attention.

The applicant, who was on probation, requested an interim remedy to allow him to bring his laptop and tablet to meetings with his Probation and Parole Officer to accommodate a disability that makes writing difficult.

The respondents opposed the request, citing a locker policy designed for safety and the applicant's history of violent outbursts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was necessary to facilitate a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights infringements but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to exchange and file documents and witness summaries.

After missing the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply within seven days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on creed, asserting that his membership in the Carpenter's Local 27 and adherence to its tenets constituted a creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that union membership and its associated tenets do not meet the definition of creed under the Human Rights Code, which requires sincerely held religious beliefs and practices.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an order for the production of pay statements and time sheets of the employee who allegedly replaced him.

The applicant argued these documents were necessary to confirm the respondent's calculations and determine his wage loss.

The Tribunal found the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issue of wage loss and ordered the respondent to produce them, reminding the parties that documents obtained through disclosure may only be used for the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had commenced a civil suit regarding the same issues, and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to these requests.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after a taxi driver denied her entry because she uses a guide dog.

The City of Mississauga requested summary dismissal as the applicant made no allegations of discrimination against it regarding its investigation of her complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against the City.

The applicant also requested to add the taxi driver as an individual respondent because the taxi company claimed its drivers are independent contractors.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the driver, finding his conduct central to the Application and noting the company's dispute over liability.

The parties agreed to resolve the human rights application and filed a Form 25 requesting a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent's name amended and finally disposed of the application in accordance with the settlement.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for document production and the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce documents relating to a job competition, finding them relevant to the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that if the respondent destroyed the interview notes, the parties should be prepared to make submissions on whether an adverse inference should be drawn.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing and its request to strike the applicant's remedial request for lost wages.

The applicant requested an order anonymizing all decisions in this human rights application to protect the identity of her children, who were the subject of related child protection proceedings.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, ordering that the applicant be referred to by her initials in all past and future decisions.

The respondent employer filed a request to dismiss the human rights application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the applicant's last day of work.

The applicant contended that his employment was terminated during a telephone call three days later, which fell within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the application was timely because the applicant alleged a discriminatory incident occurred within the one-year period preceding the filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance-arbitration proceeding.

The applicant provided no information indicating that the labour arbitration had concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that continued deferral remained appropriate.

The Tribunal also declined to provide guidance on various other employment issues raised by the applicant, noting they were outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university regarding her residency performance assessments and probation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Divisional Court had previously dismissed the applicant's judicial review application regarding the same academic decisions, finding them fair and reasonable.

Concluding that the substance of the human rights application was appropriately dealt with in the judicial review proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent relitigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, and subsequently requested an interim remedy for financial assistance and relief from a pension election due to financial hardship following her dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that financial hardship alone does not meet the significant onus required to show that an interim order is necessary to ensure an effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also deferred the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration related to the applicant's dismissal.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to comply with document disclosure rules.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant still intended to pursue the matter.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove two personal respondents from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondents' late request to cancel the scheduled merits hearing in favour of a summary hearing, though it noted the parties should be prepared to address whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success at the merits hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Final Decision dismissing his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

He argued that the hearing process was unfair, particularly the use of a teleconference, and disputed the Tribunal's findings on timeliness and the employer's investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had consented to the teleconference hearing and that the applicant was given a full opportunity to present his case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent children's aid society.

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

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her hip injury by refusing to change her visitation time to allow for closer parking, and that the respondent cancelled her visitations as a reprisal for filing the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own beliefs to support her claims, and dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success.