HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after requesting accommodation for ADHD.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, arguing the matter was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) who found the applicant was terminated for wilful misconduct.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESO specifically declined to consider the disability-related allegations as they were outside the scope of the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, noting a full hearing was required.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

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

The applicant failed to allege any conduct that would constitute discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted or a provincial offence.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board denied him benefits for a serious head injury sustained at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared outside its jurisdiction as it challenged the decision of another adjudicative process and was filed out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of other administrative bodies, which are protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating he would not pursue the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a formal Request to Withdraw an Application (Form 9) by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to communicate further or file the form.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing due to the condominium corporation's failure to provide ramped access to her unit and flexibility in parking rules.

She requested an interim remedy to halt the pouring of concrete for walkways until an agreement on accessibility modifications was reached.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the planned concrete work would not prevent the future construction of ramps and that an interim remedy was not necessary to ensure an effective final remedy.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding, the respondents requested that a witness be permitted to testify by telephone because he had relocated out of province for new employment.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that no updated medical information had been provided.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the request was based on relocation rather than medical reasons, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice from an electronic hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application did not appear to relate to any of the social areas enumerated in the Code.

The applicant was directed to file submissions but failed to do so by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for abandonment.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being fined for fishing without a licence, arguing that exemptions for individuals under 18 or over 65 are discriminatory.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Code explicitly permits the age-based distinctions in question and that the applicant could not demonstrate disadvantage.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in services related to autism treatment, the Tribunal considered whether certain respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal removed a personal respondent employee on consent after the employer assumed liability.

The Tribunal also removed Contact Niagara, finding it merely administered the independent review mechanism and had no control over the allegedly discriminatory data.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether the independent reviewer, Dr. Mason, should be removed pending further submissions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period without citing facts to establish good faith.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent did not participate.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and ordered the application to proceed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application regarding housing and services.

She argued that new medical evidence, specifically a psychiatrist's report, and a conflict with established jurisprudence justified the reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not have been determinative, and that the applicant failed to establish any conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

He claimed that after an incident with a student, he was falsely accused of making a racist comment, which led to negative references and a failure to secure long-term occasional teaching positions.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that his race or related grounds were factors in his treatment, or that he was subjected to reprisal for asserting his human rights.

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

The applicant advised the Tribunal by email that he would not be pursuing his application and would not attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing and directed the applicant to file a Form 9 Request to Withdraw an Application.

The applicant failed to file the completed form or communicate further with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting her intentions with respect to proceeding with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age against TD Bank Group.

The Tribunal initiated a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, as the respondent is a federally regulated employer.

The applicant agreed that the employment relationship is not governed by the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondent refused to accommodate him with modified duties.

The respondent requested an interim order authorizing access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to defend the application, citing potential conflicts between privacy legislation and employer duties.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and granted the respondent access to the file, limited to the applicant's 2017 absence, as well as an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal and the respondents.

The Tribunal's attempts to contact the applicant by email and mail were unsuccessful, and the applicant failed to update his contact information as required by Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order that the applicant disclose all arguably relevant documents in his possession, as required under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose any documents in his possession that are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including documents relating to his efforts to mitigate his losses by seeking other employment.