HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability against her employer, RBC, its employees, and Manulife, which adjudicated RBC's short-term disability claims.

Manulife and its employee requested summary dismissal, arguing they were not the applicant's employer.

RBC requested the removal of its individual employees as respondents, accepting vicarious liability for their actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Manulife and its employee as having no reasonable prospect of success because they were not the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal also removed the individual RBC employees as respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them in the proceeding since RBC accepted responsibility for their conduct.

The organizational respondent and two individual respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found that the organizational respondent was alleged to be liable for the same conduct, no issue of vicarious liability was raised, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking particulars of the applicant's allegations of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and harassment.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the particulars were reasonably required for the respondent to understand the allegations and file a response.

The applicant was ordered to provide the requested particulars within 14 days.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed requests to schedule a witness, split her testimony, and compel certain individuals to attend the hearing to listen to her impact evidence.

The respondent requested production of the applicant's complete clinical file and long-term disability application documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and disability documents, finding them arguably relevant to her claims of failure to accommodate and health impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the witness scheduling request but denied the requests to compel attendance and split testimony.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of a non-party student's (Student X) Ontario Student Record (OSR), notice to Student X, anonymization of all decisions, and sealing of the entire Tribunal file.

The Tribunal ordered the production of Student X's OSR, noting it was arguably relevant to the respondent's defence regarding competing accommodation needs, and ordered that any OSR documents filed into evidence be sealed.

The Tribunal declined to order further notice to Student X, as notice had already been provided.

The requests for blanket anonymization and sealing of the entire file were dismissed, as the Tribunal's standard practice of anonymizing minors adequately protects privacy interests.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent, who subsequently named two additional respondents, including the individual respondent.

Despite multiple notices, extensions, and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of failing to respond, the individual respondent did not file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to participate or receive further notice in the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

He subsequently requested to amend his application to add the ground of disability, while the respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for a summary hearing, directing that a teleconference be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing on the basis that its primary witness regarding the issue of delay was medically unavailable.

The applicant opposed the request, citing prejudice due to health and age.

The Tribunal refused the adjournment, noting that the witness's testimony might not be necessary to determine timeliness and that the hearing would also address whether the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add the ground of reprisal and additional remedies, following the termination of his employment.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendments were an extension of the initial application, the request was made early in the process, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

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

She subsequently brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the individual respondent's wife and stepdaughter as respondents, and to amend the application to include new allegations of harassment and reprisal against all three.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the new allegations could support a finding of a Code infringement and that adding the respondents and amending the application at this early stage would not cause significant prejudice.

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

The application was previously stayed due to the respondent filing for bankruptcy, and the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she intended to bring a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant and corporate respondent filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of witness contact information and arguably relevant documents, including medical records, notes, and university files.

Both parties consented to the production requests.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents and information.

The Tribunal denied the parties' requests to expedite or delay the standard disclosure timelines under Rules 16 and 17, finding no compelling reasons to deviate from the rules.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a final decision dismissing his human rights application and two interim decisions regarding witness attendance and questioning.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the interim decisions were not final and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's complaints about the adjudicator controlling the questioning of witnesses and allegedly failing to consider his disability did not meet the grounds for reconsideration and did not outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking disclosure of documents relating to a junior litigation lawyer role, interview notes for other employees, and a copy of the Tribunal's transcript of a cross-examination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents did not possess the requested documents regarding the lawyer role, the interview notes were not arguably relevant, and no transcript of the cross-examination existed as the adjudicator's personal notes are not producible.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to add Bayview Personal Injury Lawyers as a respondent and upheld a statutory stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act against the Estate of Lou Ferro.

The applicant argued that Ferro & Company was an unincorporated association rather than a sole proprietorship, and that Bayview was operating jointly with Ferro & Company.

The Tribunal found that Ferro & Company was a sole proprietorship and that Bayview was at most a successor business, not a joint operator.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to show that the interim decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be a duplicate of a previously dismissed application, and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the respondents.

The respondents requested to dismiss the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year before the application was filed, arguing they were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the alleged events, which involved a succession of sexual comments, touching, and innuendo culminating in the applicant quitting her job, constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Because the last incident occurred within one year of the filing date, the application was timely and the request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that incidents involving police conduct and court proceedings lacked a reasonable prospect of success against the school board and were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal held that the remaining incidents involving interactions between school employees and the applicant or his mother formed a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The application was allowed to proceed on the remaining allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

The application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination was the termination, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination brought a Request for Order seeking production of the applicant's medical records, including clinical files from her family doctor and psychologist, as well as statements from her long-term disability application.

The Tribunal found the records were relevant because the applicant had put her medical status and ability to return to work in issue.

The Tribunal ordered production but limited the temporal scope to the period following her maternity leave until her resignation, and directed that the psychologist's records be redacted to remove private matters unrelated to her symptoms, restrictions, or ability to work.