HRTO 2016

The respondent filed a request for an order directing the applicant to provide additional materials, including curriculum vitae for her treating physician and physiotherapist, and more detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's witness statements lacked sufficient detail and ordered her to provide amended statements with particulars of the alleged incidents and proposed accommodations.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of the requested curriculum vitae, as the applicant did not oppose the request or argue the materials were irrelevant.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for medical reasons, providing a letter from his family physician.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's active participation in other legal proceedings, including filing complex legal submissions and participating in mediation, contradicted the medical evidence that he was incapable of engaging in activities requiring focused cognition.

The summary hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed two identical human rights applications regarding an incident involving the police and his former landlord.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application against the landlord for lack of jurisdiction in a separate file.

Noting that the applicant also named the landlord in this application, the Tribunal applied its previous decision and dismissed the application against the former landlord, removing him as a party.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and involved a matter of public importance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5, as he merely disagreed with the decision and attempted to introduce evidence that was available at the original hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed confusion between the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and the Tribunal, and that he was waiting for the Centre to file his application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the limitation period and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply and respond to the respondent's request to amend its name.

The applicant was warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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.

He also requested that his name be anonymized in the decisions to protect his future employment prospects.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant merely reargued his case and did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal also denied the request for anonymization, holding that the principle of open justice outweighed the applicant's concerns, as the decisions contained no personal or sensitive information.

The applicant, who identifies as pan-gendered, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination regarding the binary gender designation on driver's licenses and health cards.

The respondent requested disclosure of the applicant's medical records relating to gender identity assessment.

The Tribunal found that the requested medical records were arguably relevant to establishing the applicant's lived experience of a fluid gender identity and ordered their disclosure, subject to strict confidentiality and excluding surgical records.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Family Responsibility Office as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued that the decision should be reconsidered under Rule 26.5(c) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how his request met the criteria and merely repeated the same arguments made at the summary hearing.

The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case.

The applicant filed an application against the City of Toronto under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file arguably relevant documents, witness lists, and hearing documents.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed for non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to add the Attorney General of Canada as a party due to lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that a previous Tribunal decision, Azevedo, conflicted with this ruling.

The Tribunal found that Azevedo did not discuss jurisdiction and was withdrawn on consent, meaning it was not conflicting case law.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and reprisal after he was unsuccessful in the recruitment process for a transit operator position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant relied solely on his subjective belief that he was treated differently because he is Black, and failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decision not to hire him to his race.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing and contract because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the Tribunal's power to decide based on timeliness.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against him on the basis of disability, race, and sexual orientation by failing to accommodate his mental health needs and assist with his OSAP disability bursary.

At the hearing, the Tribunal narrowed the issue to whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant falsified a medical report from his treating physician to indicate his disability was permanent rather than temporary.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had a disability requiring accommodation at the material time, as his evidence lacked credibility and the medical documents were unreliable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate how his request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he merely repeated previous arguments and attempted to reargue the case.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that his appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) would not be heard for at least a year.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that reactivating the application while the WSIAT appeal was ongoing could lead to contrary findings of fact and decisions.

The application remains deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceeding.

The respondent requested to set aside the reactivation of a human rights application, arguing that a related grievance proceeding was still ongoing.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating he had not consented to the union proceeding further with the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was still outstanding and deferred the application pending its conclusion, noting the applicant must provide written confirmation if the grievance is withdrawn.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability requested an order for early access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management (OHCM) file prior to filing its Response.

The applicant opposed the request on privacy grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documents were necessary for the respondent to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal limited access to the relevant time period and imposed strict confidentiality safeguards, while also ordering the respondent to provide a copy of the disclosed file to the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on a preliminary basis for being untimely.

The applicant argued that declining jurisdiction for technical reasons was contrary to the public interest and that the last incident of discrimination occurred later than the Tribunal found.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that it cannot consider the merits of an application outside its jurisdiction and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the case.