HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by the respondents.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested extensive disclosure, including personnel files, bank statements, and candidate resumes from the organizational respondent, as well as an investigation into potential Charter violations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents had no arguable relevance to the allegations and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to conduct investigations.

The applicant was ordered to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario College of Teachers and several individuals.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including one regarding the scheduling of a meeting on a religious holiday due to delay, and others for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was discriminatorily excluded from sitting on the Discipline Committee to proceed to a full hearing.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether statutory privilege barred allegations regarding the College's Investigation Committee, directing a further preliminary hearing on that issue.

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm their intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by his former employer approximately four months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith as the applicant had been repeatedly advised by the Ministry of Labour well within the limitation period that discrimination claims must be filed with the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her deferred human rights application in order to add two new parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application until a related 2009 application was finally determined in its entirety.

The Tribunal also noted potential limitation period issues regarding the addition of the new parties.

The applicant sought an order removing the respondent's law firm as counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because he had previously contacted the firm's administrative staff to seek legal advice and provided confidential information.

The Tribunal applied the test from MacDonald Estate and considered the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct.

Assuming confidential information was imparted, the Tribunal found that the law firm had implemented reasonable measures, such as ethical screens, to ensure no confidential information would be accessed by its lawyers.

The motion to disqualify the law firm was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination related to events between 1994 and 2012 involving his child.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applications were filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as it was plain and obvious they were filed outside the limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant, who is HIV positive, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after the respondent out-patient clinic directed him to have a screening colonoscopy at a hospital rather than at the clinic.

The clinic's policy directed patients with certain medical histories, including HIV, to a hospital endoscopy unit due to the clinic's low-risk capacity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's preference for a clinic setting over a hospital was not a need related to his disability, and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to evaluate the medical appropriateness of a physician's clinical risk assessment absent arbitrariness.

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

After several years, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the WSIB proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's letter within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the organizational respondent to disclose the contact information of four former classmates so they could be added as respondents to his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request and removed the classmates as respondents, finding that the Human Rights Code does not cover allegations of discrimination or harassment against fellow classmates.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events from 1999/2000 as untimely, finding no reasonable explanation for the 15-year delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations of discrimination based on disability, age, gender identity, and gender expression for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation to proceed to a full hearing, finding the applicant had alleged sufficient facts to establish a potential link to the respondent's denial of her 2015 application.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding a related Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that the issue of whether the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code could not be determined until a final decision was reached in that proceeding.

The applicant filed two identical applications alleging a breach of settlement against two respondents.

The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

The respondents supported consolidation, while the applicant opposed it.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent results.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to proceed to a single one-day hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent treated her unfairly and conspired to have her evicted, but failed to connect this treatment to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not demonstrate how the previous decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or involved a matter of public importance, nor did she establish other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

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

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding.

The applicant withdrew her OLRB claim, and the respondent did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding had concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to file its response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss against Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Morneau Shepell Ltd., and a Notice of Intent to Defer against Morneau and Great West Life Assurance Company pending a grievance arbitration.

On consent, OPG was removed as a respondent.

The application was deferred without objection pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

She alleged the decision was biased and drafted on the recommendation of a third party involved in her family law dispute.

The Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the applicant provided no basis for the bald assertion.

The Tribunal also held that reconsideration is not an appeal to evaluate alleged errors, and the applicant failed to show how her new factual allegations could be determinative or could not have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.