HRTO 2016

The applicant, an Emergency After Hours Service worker, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his race, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent terminated the applicant's services after an investigation concluded he had instructed the answering service to defer calls until the office opened, effectively refusing to take emergency calls.

The applicant argued that deferring non-urgent calls was a common practice among non-racialized workers who were not disciplined.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed refused calls and that there was no evidence other workers engaged in the same practice.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish discrimination.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance proceedings under a collective agreement.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings on the same facts.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, alleged discrimination in contracts because his commercial lease included a clause stating the landlord was not required to upgrade the washrooms to be barrier-free.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the lease was signed.

The Tribunal found that the inclusion of the term in the lease was a single act with continuing effects, not a series of incidents.

As the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Automobile Accident Benefits Service Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The Tribunal found that the issues and underlying facts in both proceedings were substantially the same, creating a real risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the LAT proceeding.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about their intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two Contravention of Settlement Applications alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant requested that the two applications be heard together, and the respondent consented.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and found that consolidating the applications would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, prevent inconsistent findings, and cause no prejudice to the parties.

The request was granted and the applications were consolidated.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

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

Correspondence and notices of mediation sent to the applicant were returned marked 'moved address unknown'.

The applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions requesting updated contact information and mutually agreeable dates for mediation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued that his legal representative had inadvertently failed to respond to the original deferral request.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting that the WSIB proceedings were ongoing and that reactivation could result in inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so while the WSIB process had not yet concluded.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services and accommodation on the basis of receipt of public assistance after her application for membership in the respondent housing co-operative was denied.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' requests for specific financial documentation or their ultimate denial of her application to the fact that she received social assistance.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application against the School Board for being untimely and against the Union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to address her reasons for delay and complained about the Union's failure to represent her.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that the allegations against the Union were dismissed because a union's refusal to represent a member is not discriminatory unless based on a Code ground, and that the reconsideration process cannot be used as an appeal.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed multiple Requests for an Order During Proceedings from both parties.

The respondents sought to dismiss the remaining allegations of sexual harassment and failure to investigate, which the Tribunal denied as those issues had already survived a prior summary hearing.

The applicant sought to exclude certain information from the respondents' request, which was denied as premature.

The applicant also sought to reactivate a previously dismissed application and amend her current application to add new reprisal claims.

Applying the Wozenilek factors, the Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, noting the late stage of the proceeding, the prior summary hearing, and the potential expansion of the hearing's scope.

The organizational respondent requested the removal of an individual respondent and the dismissal of the application by way of a summary hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to these requests or to a subsequent Tribunal direction requiring a response.

The applicant also failed to file a Reply contesting the respondents' version of events.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former security guard, brought an application alleging discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for the production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the applicant's personal memo book and any documents related to the investigation of the complaints made against him, finding them arguably relevant.

The Tribunal denied the requests for unredacted complaints, complaints against other employees or tenants, and information regarding the property management's legal counsel, as the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (NOID) because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond by a specific date but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The request was filed more than three months past the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to provide any reasons for the delay despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing on the merits of her human rights application and failed to comply with multiple Case Assessment Directions regarding document disclosure.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application on a summary basis for having no reasonable prospect of success, but dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a final decision dismissing her human rights application against multiple respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to justify reconsideration.

The applicant's materials largely repeated previous allegations and attempted to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability and reprisal.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant elected not to testify and failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

Given the lack of evidence and non-compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was dismissed.

A subsequent request by the applicant to withdraw the application was denied given the time and resources already expended.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking medical information from an individual respondent who was unable to attend the hearing, as well as the production of emails and police statements related to the incident.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for medical information and emails, finding them unnecessary or that the documents could not be located.

The Tribunal ordered the Toronto Police Services Board to disclose the individual respondent's police statement.

Finding the applicant's repeated requests regarding the police board to be somewhat vexatious, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant must seek permission before filing further requests involving the police board.