HRTO 2016

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the mandatory bar in section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have deferred the application pending the conclusion of her civil claim against the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the previous decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure, and noting that deferral was impossible because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment, permission to record the hearing, and an order requiring the respondent to explain the relevancy of medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request as there were no extraordinary circumstances.

The request regarding medical documents was denied at this stage, without prejudice to raising it at the hearing.

The applicant was granted permission to record the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability after a Justice of the Peace denied his request for an adjournment of a traffic court trial and convicted him in absentia.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the complaint was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, which protects judicial decision-makers from legal proceedings based on their adjudicative actions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim of discrimination against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant alleged he was misled by a WSIB Claims Manager about the impact of a temporary withdrawal from a Work Transition program for non-compensable surgery.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the misinformation was provided for discriminatory reasons.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to address constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Human Rights Code and the duty to accommodate under section 17.

The Tribunal held that the issue was not a discriminatory policy but alleged misinformation, and denied the request for reconsideration as the criteria under Rule 26 were not met.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of gender expression and reprisal after the respondent strictly enforced a 'clean shaven policy' requiring employees to be clean shaven to ensure the proper fit of respirator masks.

The applicant had grown a goatee to support the Movember movement.

The Tribunal held that the wearing of a beard by a cisgendered man is a matter of style or grooming and is not protected under the ground of gender expression or sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, finding that the threat of discipline was for failing to comply with the policy, not for claiming Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to outstanding production requests and the respondent's failure to file a response to her Request for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that outstanding production requests do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, particularly since the applicant had failed to comply with her own disclosure obligations.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with the first day dedicated to addressing the outstanding production requests and exploring mediation.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response.

The applicant consented to the request and did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the applicant to file a Reply to the amended Response within 14 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

After his requests for a deferral and an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing were denied, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw, noting that while there were concerns the withdrawal might be an attempt to circumvent the denied adjournment, the respondents' consent made it appropriate to grant the request without prejudice to any future arguments regarding abuse of process if the application is refiled.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness information.

Following a Case Assessment Direction that warned of dismissal for non-compliance, the applicant again failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

The applicant and his union submitted that deferral was not appropriate because the grievance was in abeyance due to the applicant being out of the workplace with no known return date.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer the application since the grievance was not proceeding, and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of her union grievances regarding failure to accommodate and termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for the production of the applicant's medical records, OHIP records, criminal records, and post-dismissal employment records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical records related to PTSD and anxiety for the period of his employment, as he had put his medical condition in issue.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of post-dismissal employment records as they were relevant to the issue of remedy.

The requests for OHIP records and criminal records were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay occurred because he initially filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in error.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as the applicant failed to make timely inquiries about the correct forum before the limitation period expired.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the application remained dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(a) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, submitting detailed arguments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Tribunal found that the submissions did not constitute new facts that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier, and maintained that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter as it did not relate to discrimination, harassment, or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent employer requested an order requiring the applicant to consent to the release of her occupational health file held by a third-party provider.

The applicant had alleged failure to accommodate her disability but refused to release the records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent needed the records to meaningfully respond to the application and ordered the applicant to sign a consent form waiving confidentiality.

The respondent Children and Family Services for York Region requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent child protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the facts, legal issues, and remedies sought were different.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings dealt with the same facts and raised the potential for inconsistent results.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding.

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

Prior to filing, the applicant had settled a grievance concerning his termination, signing a Memorandum of Agreement and a Final Release discharging the employer from all claims, including those under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process.

The applicant claimed he signed the release under duress from his union.

The Tribunal found no evidence of illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion and held that the release was binding.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The matter was directed to mediation as agreed by the parties.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove two individual respondents from an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the actions of the individuals, there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy the alleged violation, and no compelling reason existed to keep the individuals as parties.

The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.