HRTO 2016

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking anonymity in the Tribunal process, arguing that the nature of his disability was stigmatizing and could negatively impact future employment.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the facts did not present exceptional circumstances of sensitivity or privacy that would justify departing from the open hearing principle.

The Tribunal noted that most disability cases involve some disclosure of personal information and that measures could be taken in writing decisions to reveal only necessary private information.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to increase his claim for general damages from $1,200 to $1,500.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and granted the amendment, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondents given the hearing date was over two months away.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on race, disability, age, and reprisal during a co-op placement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code beyond his own speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a seasonal retail position.

The applicant claimed she was treated coldly during a group interview compared to non-white candidates.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support an inference of discrimination, noting the applicant's own admission that her cellphone rang and she answered it during the interview, which the respondent cited as the non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant argued that the WSIAT appeal would not be heard for another year, resulting in a delay of over three and a half years since the appealed decision.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB/WSIAT proceedings had become unduly prolonged and that deferral was no longer the most fair, just, and expeditious way to process the application.

The request to reactivate the application was granted.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents related to a hiring competition, including interview notes, test questions, and reference checks of another candidate.

The Tribunal declined to order production, noting that the respondent had already agreed to provide typed copies of handwritten notes and other relevant materials.

The requested test questions were found not arguably relevant because the applicant had been waived through those stages of the competition.

The Tribunal also noted it cannot order the production of non-existent documents.

The respondent college brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's high school accommodation records.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's grades-based admission process for its Veterinary Assistant program discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

The respondent argued the records were relevant to show its assessment of her accommodated high school grades was not discriminatory.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the issue was whether the grades-based admission process itself was discriminatory, not whether the applicant was properly accommodated in high school.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to determine if the application alleging employment discrimination based on race had no reasonable prospect of success.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents called into the hearing.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

A case management conference call was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated after he reported a work-related injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the application by denying the applicant's claim for benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting the applicant had filed an objection to the WSIB decision, meaning it was not a final decision.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise if they wished to participate in mediation or make submissions on deferring the application pending the WSIB appeal.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add new allegations regarding a prior student placement and to add York University as a respondent.

The respondents opposed these requests and sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, finding that the proposed new allegations were untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and did not form part of a series of incidents with the original allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent, as her conduct was a central issue in the case.

The applicant, a student, alleged discrimination by the respondent school resulting in his dismissal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled that the allegations dating back to November 2012 constituted a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also granted requests to remove the personal respondent and to amend the application to add the ground of disability.

Various requests for the production of documents were decided, including denying the applicant's request for other students' disciplinary records and granting the respondent's requests for the applicant's educational and medical records.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability after being denied admission to the respondents' retirement facility.

She sought an interim remedy to be admitted pending the final decision and requested to expedite the proceeding.

The respondents argued they could not provide suitable care due to her medical circumstances and comments she made.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the balance of harm and convenience favoured maintaining the status quo given the factual disputes regarding the respondents' ability to provide suitable accommodation.

The request to expedite was also refused.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was provided to the parties.

The respondent attended the hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

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

The applicant filed a third human rights application and sought to have it consolidated with her two previous applications.

The respondent consented to the consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications and considered whether to defer them pending the conclusion of an ongoing arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

Despite the applicant's objections regarding the speed of the GSB proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications, noting that the grievance process was active and a mechanism was in place to address post-July 2013 issues.

The applicants requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because their representative received short notice to take her Oath of Citizenship on the same day.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the representative's Oath of Citizenship constituted an extraordinary circumstance under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, and the delay in notification did not cause significant inconvenience to the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file a complete application and written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) requiring written submissions by a specified date, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.