HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and failure to advance in her career.

Prior to filing the application, she filed a union grievance raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent had not discriminated against him on the basis of disability.

The applicant alleged a denial of natural justice, claiming he was denied the opportunity to respond to the respondent's lawyer during the summary hearing and that the hearing was abruptly terminated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, had a full opportunity to make oral and written submissions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and denied the request for reconsideration.

The parties jointly requested that the applicant's name be anonymized in the Tribunal process, following a previous interim decision that had denied the request.

In light of newly developed circumstances involving highly sensitive information, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant the anonymization order, balancing the public interest in open justice against the significant consequences of identifying the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal on various grounds.

The allegations primarily related to child protection proceedings, medical treatment, and benefit entitlements spanning several years.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the allegations either had no reasonable prospect of success, fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking detailed witness statements and document production from the respondent.

The respondent had failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and a Case Assessment Direction regarding disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its disclosure obligations and ordered the respondent to provide a list of witnesses, detailed witness statements, and copies of all documents it intends to rely on at the hearing.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to file hearing materials by a specified date.

The applicant failed to file any documents or contact the Tribunal despite being warned that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes, but neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed during his brother's arrest and questioning by the respondents.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of concurrent criminal proceedings against the claimant.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the factual overlap and the potential for conflicting findings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services by an employee of TD Bank.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as banking falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant requested the Tribunal defer the application pending a determination by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal declined to defer and dismissed the application, finding that the provision of banking services clearly falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging race and colour discrimination by the respondents regarding comments made and a report to the Children's Aid Society when she sought early discharge of her newborns.

The respondents requested the Tribunal defer or dismiss the application pending the outcome of the applicant's complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the legal issues are distinct and that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act creates an absolute statutory privilege preventing the admission of college proceeding records in civil proceedings, meaning the college outcomes could have no impact on the Tribunal application.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application alleging creed discrimination, which had been deferred pending a union grievance.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was untimely and barred by a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding it was filed within the 60-day time limit under the Rules of Procedure.

However, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a request for particulars prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that the applicant had provided sufficient detail in his application and that further particulars would be addressed through document disclosure and witness statements once the matter was set down for a hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application, as he had failed to respond to the respondents' last two requests.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Although the OLRB dismissed her Employment Standards Act complaint, a hearing for her Occupational Health and Safety Act complaint remained pending.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of inconsistent findings remained due to overlapping facts and issues, and ordered the application to remain deferred until the OLRB determines the OHSA complaint.

The applicant, a Rastafarian, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed when the respondent home care agency sent male personal support workers to bathe him.

The applicant claimed his religion strictly prohibits a man from bathing another man.

At a preliminary hearing to determine if this belief was rooted in religion, the Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence, such as religious texts or testimony from elders, to establish a nexus between the applicant's personal belief and the Rastafarian faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, stating she was in India caring for a parent and obtaining a dual citizenship card.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, especially given the applicant's failure to request it before leaving the country.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's repeated failure to meet her pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior settlement before the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the CFSRB's authority under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act is limited to procedural matters and does not extend to hearing or remedying Code violations.

Therefore, the prior settlement did not appropriately deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed his application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there were new facts and other factors outweighing the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and provided details that were available at the time of the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of issue estoppel and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's underlying claim alleged discrimination by the respondent in calculating her social assistance benefits, an issue previously determined by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case, repair deficiencies in her previous submissions, and raise issues that did not meet the limited criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

After the respondent filed a Response, the applicant failed to file a Reply by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to file a Reply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond to the direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal after returning to work from a leave related to asthma triggered by photocopier emissions.

The Tribunal had previously deferred her first application pending a WSIAT appeal regarding the cause of her asthma.

The Tribunal declined to defer the second application, finding that the issues of accommodation and reprisal upon her return to work extended beyond the scope of the WSIAT appeal, minimizing the risk of inconsistent results.