HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document exchange and indicated via email that she had no interest in pursuing the matter.

After failing to respond to the Tribunal's directions to either file a formal withdrawal or confirm her intention to proceed, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his dismissal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, noting that pursuing a grievance does not toll the limitation period and the applicant did not act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal after not being reassigned to a new school.

The respondent school board sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a settlement reached between the respondent and the applicant's union in a related grievance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not explicitly or implicitly accepted the settlement, as he had not signed the minutes of settlement, had not cashed the settlement cheque, and could not benefit from the non-monetary provisions due to being on disability leave.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a university student, alleged age discrimination after her landlord, a university housing organization, increased her rent beyond the provincial guideline.

The landlord relied on an exemption in the Residential Tenancies Act for student housing.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in a timely manner but dismissed it as having no reasonable prospect of success, noting the applicant challenged the legislation itself rather than the landlord's actions, and the landlord could not be held liable for the legislation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the respondent, a security company.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing its operations at the Greater Toronto Airport Authority fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the provision of security services at the airport is integral to a federal work or undertaking (aeronautics).

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of two related union grievances.

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievances only addressed her lost employment and not human rights issues.

The respondent supported the deferral.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid inconsistent findings.

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

Several respondents filed responses, but the respondent Advantage Inn failed to file a response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent No Response Notice.

The Tribunal ordered that Advantage Inn is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and is not entitled to further notice.

The applicant, a seasonal paving worker, alleged he was terminated because of his Turkish ethnic origin and a workplace injury to his finger.

The Tribunal dismissed the ethnic origin claim for lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination, rejecting the employer's assertion that he was laid off due to a shortage of work.

The employer failed to provide credible evidence or documentation supporting the shortage of work claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer's management to undergo human rights training.

A claim for lost wages was denied because medical evidence indicated the applicant was unable to work due to the injury itself.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was deferred pending the outcome of an Employment Standards Act claim.

After the ESA claim concluded, the applicant failed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate the application within the 60-day period required by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a conflicting medical appointment and the recent retention of counsel.

The applicants opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing is not an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's conflicting medical appointment constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment in part, cancelling the first day of the hearing but ordering the second day to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the disclosure of documents and witness summaries.

Despite warnings that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide any explanation for his absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Ontario Court of Justice for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Family Law Act was incorrect and alleged a conflict of interest because both the Tribunal and the respondent fall under the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request because the applicant had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to the respondent's submissions before the initial decision was made, amounting to a breach of natural justice.

However, upon reconsidering the matter with the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide proof that his concurrent civil action based on the same facts had been discontinued.

Consequently, the application remained barred by section 34(11) and was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the Ontario College of Teachers.

He argued that the respondent withheld relevant information prior to the summary hearing and sought to reargue his case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered no prejudice from the alleged failure to receive documents and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on record of offences.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents related to the applicant's job search efforts and mitigation of damages.

The Tribunal found the documents relevant to the applicant's claim for loss of compensation, but narrowed the scope of the request regarding the applicant's personal business to earning statements only.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within seven days.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of his cognitive disability by failing to accommodate his need for his brother to act as a support person and representative.

The Tribunal found that it was the employer, not the union, who refused to allow the brother to attend a grievance meeting.

Furthermore, the union's initial legal position in an OLRB proceeding challenging the brother's standing was protected by absolute privilege and was ultimately not pursued.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex against her employer, Securitas, her supervisor, and the client company, Toyota, where she worked as a security guard.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against Toyota and its employee, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no link between their actions and the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against Securitas and the supervisor regarding a July 2013 disciplinary incident as an abuse of process, noting that the applicant had already received the benefit of a grievance settlement regarding those issues.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged unfair treatment and her sex.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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 Tribunal correspondence inquiring about their intentions.

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