HRTO 2017

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by removing two paragraphs and revising others.

The respondents consented on the condition that the applicant file an amended application showing all changes in a single document.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the amendments narrowed the scope of the allegations.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination regarding the Ministry of Transportation's policy on exemptions from the one-year waiting period for a driver's license.

The applicant requested to expedite the Application, arguing it would become moot if not heard before the waiting period expired.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, noting that the Application would not necessarily become moot under the Tribunal's case law, and offered the parties an expedited mediation.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled preliminary hearing by teleconference.

The hearing was convened to determine whether the application should be dismissed because the issues had been dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

After waiting 30 minutes with no appearance or communication from the applicant, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her supervisor as a personal respondent, add the ground of reprisal, and amend the remedy sought from $35,000 to $150,000.

The corporate respondent opposed the requests, arguing that it would be deemed liable for the supervisor's actions under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the supervisor's conduct was a central issue, s. 46.3(1) does not apply to harassment allegations, and the amendments to the grounds and remedies were appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to add Renfrew County Ontario Works as a respondent, add sex as a ground of discrimination, anonymize the application, and requested accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the respondent because the applicant had already commenced a separate application against them.

The request to add sex as a ground was granted.

The request for anonymization was denied as the applicant did not establish exceptional circumstances outweighing the public interest in open justice.

The accommodation request was deferred pending specific requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

Following a summary hearing, all other allegations were dismissed.

The applicant subsequently failed to provide prehearing disclosure and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (environmental sensitivities) due to noise and vibration from a public festival held by the respondents near her apartment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that holding a public festival on the street did not create a service relationship between the respondents and the applicant, as she did not attempt to access the festival and no benefit was conferred upon her.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of timeliness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and family status.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon her termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress to obtain her Record of Employment and a reference letter.

The Tribunal found that the pressure the applicant experienced did not amount to duress and that she had been given seven days to consider the severance offer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant brought a motion to add the Ministry of Community and Social Services and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works as respondents to her human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the denial of a Guide Dog Benefit.

The applicant also requested an in-person summary hearing as an accommodation for her disabilities.

The Tribunal granted both requests, noting the lack of opposition from the proposed respondents and applying the test for adding respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant, a former condominium board president, alleged she experienced discrimination and harassment on the basis of age when she was removed as a signing officer and as board president.

She claimed another board member called her an 'old bitch' and said the board was not a place for old people.

The respondents denied the allegations, testifying that the applicant was removed because she actively opposed the board's decisions, specifically regarding the termination of the superintendent, and acted against the corporation's interests.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence credible and concluded that the applicant's removal was based on her conduct, not her age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant's litigation guardian advised the Tribunal by email that the applicant wished to withdraw the application but failed to file the required form or respond to the NOID.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had not received the Notice of Hearing and was unaware of the hearing date or its disclosure obligations.

The applicant opposed the request, despite also failing to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's lack of notice constituted an exceptional circumstance and granted the adjournment to ensure a fair process.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying its established approach, the Tribunal found that the respondents had chosen not to participate in the proceedings.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

The matter was directed to proceed to a telephone hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment approximately three and a half months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to financial pressures and family health issues during his employment.

The Tribunal found that while this explained the delay during his employment, it did not explain the failure to file within the limitation period after his employment ended.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of video surveillance footage from a hallway where she alleged she was assaulted by security guards.

The respondent opposed the request, stating that no camera exists in that area and all relevant footage had already been produced.

The Tribunal noted that while the footage would be arguably relevant, it cannot order the production of something that does not exist.

The request was denied, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses at the hearing.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deemed them to have accepted the allegations in the applications and waived their right to participate due to their failure to respond.

The respondents claimed they had not received notice of the applications or the interim decision.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was aware of the applications, had received the materials, and deliberately attempted to mislead the Tribunal by claiming otherwise.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' conduct constituted an egregious abuse of process and denied the request for reconsideration.