HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement by paying insufficient severance and failing to provide continuous health and dental benefits.

The Tribunal found the language of the Minutes was clear and unambiguous, and the respondent had complied with the agreed-upon terms regarding severance pay and the 18-month continuation of benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a massage therapist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario regarding its investigation and disciplinary processes.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the most recent incidents relied upon by the applicant, including a formal caution, were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The remaining allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

As the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed.

The applicants filed applications alleging a breach of the confidentiality term of a previous settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing by telephone.

The respondent attended, but the applicants did not.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the applicants' non-attendance.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the individual respondent and the corporate respondent.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application against the corporate respondent, arguing it is not liable for sexual solicitation by employees, and against the individual respondent, arguing she could not confer a benefit or advancement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to dismiss the application against either respondent without hearing evidence on the issues under sections 7, 8, and 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his concurrent civil claim against the respondent.

The applicant argued that the application should be reactivated due to a lack of movement in the civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application while the civil claim, which relates to the same facts, remains ongoing.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order to amend the remedy sought in her application to $486,585.00.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment without prejudice to the respondent's position on the appropriateness of the remedy.

The Tribunal also issued directions regarding pre-hearing disclosure deadlines under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and directed the intervenor union to advise the Tribunal of the scope of intervention rights it seeks.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes and, noting that the applicant had received notice of the hearing and had previously communicated availability, deemed the applications abandoned.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that new medical evidence and his involvement in other legal proceedings justified the delay.

The Tribunal found that the new medical note did not establish that a disability prevented him from filing on time, and that his arguments were largely a repetition of those already considered.

The request for reconsideration was denied, and the applicant was warned against making inappropriate and unfounded comments in Tribunal proceedings.

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

The application was deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB/WSIAT claim.

After the applicant's counsel withdrew and the applicant repeatedly failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions to provide updates on the WSIAT appeal status, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination in restaurant service based on his First Nations identity.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to consider all evidence, specifically regarding where he and his family were seated.

The Tribunal found that the seating dispute had no bearing on the core allegation of discrimination and did not affect the credibility findings.

Concluding that the request did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

He argued that he did not receive notice to file witness information and that his father had passed away.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been sent multiple notices regarding his pre-hearing obligations to both his mailing and e-mail addresses, none of which were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that he did not receive notice through no fault of his own, and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a change in his medication rendered him not fully lucid.

The respondents consented to the adjournment on the condition that it be rescheduled for the next available dates and that any further delay require medical evidence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden medical issue constituted exceptional circumstances, and directed that the new hearing dates would be peremptory on the applicant.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application against the Ontario Provincial Police and several law firms.

He also sought to add Valoris for Children & Adults Prescott-Russell as a party respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request to add a party was also denied because the underlying application had already been dismissed.

Both requests were denied.

The applicant, an inmate at the Thunder Bay District Jail, alleged discrimination and reprisal by correctional staff, claiming he was harassed, subjected to unsafe conditions, and called a 'political refugee'.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code, nor any evidence of an intention to reprise against the applicant.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misapplied the law, introduced new issues, and exhibited bias due to direct email communications from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal found no material errors in the original decision and concluded that a reasonable observer would not apprehend bias from the email communication, which was promptly redirected to the Registrar.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because the applicant failed to provide witness statements as directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while the applicant failed to comply with the disclosure rules, he would generally be permitted to testify to facts already contained in his pleadings but would not be permitted to give evidence on matters not covered by the pleadings or call witnesses for whom no statement was provided.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing based on the pleadings.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that had denied his request to reconsider two interim decisions.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that interim decisions are not final decisions subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1, and the applicant provided no new information to warrant reconsideration.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to specifically identify and file the documents he intends to rely upon at the upcoming hearing, rather than relying on a blanket statement covering all previously filed documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against her on the basis of age through the actions of its by-law officers.

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

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and the applicant failed to establish a series of incidents or a good faith reason for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided only bald assertions and no evidence linking the by-law enforcement actions to her age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a preliminary hearing, claiming she had to attend court.

The Tribunal directed her to file a court document confirming her attendance.

The applicant failed to provide the required proof and instead submitted letters from third parties that did not confirm her court attendance.

Finding that the applicant obtained the adjournment on a false basis and repeatedly failed to comply with directions, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.