HRTO 2016

The individual respondent requested that the human rights application alleging homophobic comments be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that internal investigations by the union and the employer had already appropriately dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that an internal investigation or complaints process does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the issues were not dealt with in the other proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that even if the new evidence were accepted, the application would still be dismissed because the issues had already been adjudicated by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

Consequently, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in her cooperative housing based on race, origin, and sex.

The respondent requested a preliminary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding sexual harassment by a handyman and a dispute over a satellite dish were filed outside the one-year limitation period and did not form a series of incidents with timely allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed those allegations as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations of discriminatory comments by board members and another resident formed a series of incidents extending into the limitation period.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss these remaining allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding they raised credibility issues and could potentially establish a poisoned housing environment requiring a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her landlord's property management company on various grounds, including sex, race, disability, and receipt of public assistance.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on mere suspicion and belief, with no evidence linking the respondent's actions to any protected grounds under the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant because she attended the summary hearing.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, an injured migrant worker living in Jamaica, filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB discriminated against him in the administration of his healthcare benefits by requiring him to pay out-of-pocket for services and transportation before being reimbursed.

The WSIB requested a deferral of the application pending the applicant's WSIB appeals, and a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the human rights issues regarding the administration of benefits were not addressed in the WSIB appeals, and that the allegations of discriminatory impact required a full evidentiary record to determine.

The respondent City of Toronto requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it liable for discrimination after an employee failed to adequately respond to a racial slur directed at the applicant by another member of the public.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the finding of discrimination, concluding it did not conflict with established jurisprudence.

However, the Tribunal granted the request regarding the training remedy ordered, as the respondent had not been given notice that such a remedy was being contemplated, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario but also commenced a civil action seeking an order for an alleged infringement of her rights under the Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to make submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant failed to make submissions or contact the Tribunal.

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

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability following a motor vehicle accident and discriminatorily terminated her employment, and that her union discriminatorily withdrew her grievances.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the applicant's settlement of a civil claim for long-term disability benefits and medical reports indicating she was totally disabled from working.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own medical evidence demonstrated she was incapable of returning to work and that her prognosis was poor, meaning there was no reasonable prospect she could prove the employer failed to accommodate her or discriminatorily terminated her employment.

The allegations against the union were also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, primarily relating to his dissatisfaction with his union's representation after he complained about a co-worker's racial slur.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions to a protected ground or establishing that the union intended to reprise against him for claiming his rights under the Code.

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

The respondent non-profit housing cooperative requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it failed to adequately address serious and persistent harassment directed at the applicants.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred by applying the reasonableness standard from employment jurisprudence without accounting for the unique nature of volunteer-run housing cooperatives.

The respondent also challenged the remedial orders, which included monetary compensation and requirements to post the decision and notify members.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the reconsideration request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that the respondent failed to propose an alternative legal standard.

However, the Tribunal removed the requirement to post the decision on the cooperative's bulletin board, finding it redundant given the requirement to send notices directly to members.

The applicant, a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder, filed a human rights application against the school board and the Ministry of Education regarding his special education placement.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Ministry.

The school board objected, arguing that the withdrawal should be denied or conditions imposed because the application sought public interest remedies affecting the Ministry.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw without imposing terms, consistent with its established practice of not inquiring into reasons for withdrawal prior to a hearing, and deferred the determination of appropriate remedies to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal against multiple respondents, including her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the union respondent on the basis that the allegations might fall outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that it was not plain and obvious that the application lacked jurisdiction, as the allegations pertained to a failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondents to file their responses.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability against two different respondents arising from the same incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the applications should be consolidated or heard together.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that while the respondents were different and their interests might not align, the issues arose out of similar facts.

To avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents reprised against him by making a complaint to the police regarding his repeated communications with the City and its employees.

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

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the respondents contacted the police with the intention of retaliating against him for a civil claim, rather than due to legitimate concerns about his harassing communications.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing workplace bullying, denial of E.I. benefits, and termination of employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding E.I. benefits and termination had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence connecting these events to the applicant's disability.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her medical condition.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of WSIB and Employment Standards Act proceedings.

After the applicant's legal representative withdrew, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directly to inquire about the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against a bank alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising the applicant that the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated service provider and directing her to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and, alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction, as banks are federally-regulated enterprises subject to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and the WSIB, more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was pursuing redress through other Ministry of Labour agencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that pursuing alternate avenues of redress does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to defer and adjourn the hearing of his human rights application, while the respondent requested a summary hearing and an order for the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal refused the applicant's requests for deferral and adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also refused the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to deliver his arguably relevant documents to the respondent by a specified date, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.