HRTO 2017

The applicants filed separate applications against the same respondent and requested that the applications be heard together.

The respondent consented to the request.

Applying the factors set out in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal found that the applications raised common issues of fact and law.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, disability, sex, and association after he was not selected for a volunteer board position with the respondent.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based entirely on speculation and that he could point to no evidence to support his belief that his protected characteristics were factors in the respondent's decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged racial discrimination in her employment, claiming a manager engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour towards her and that her subsequent termination was discriminatory.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing the conflict was purely interpersonal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the allegations of subtle racial discrimination and the reasons for termination required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing, citing a medical note for a cough and a desire to retain counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel since the hearing was directed almost a year prior.

Furthermore, the medical note was insufficient to justify an inability to participate in a short telephone hearing.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that its business as a telecommunications contractor for Rogers Communications falls under federal jurisdiction.

Relying on a recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision involving the same respondent, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to displace the strong presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was allowed to proceed.

The applicant in a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Upper Canada brought a motion to expand the scope of the application to investigate systemic racism, trifurcate the hearing, and introduce expert and other witness evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests to expand the scope and call the proposed witnesses, finding that the applicant failed to plead material facts or comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding witness statements and expert reports in a timely manner.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to record the proceedings.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was provided with notice.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add disability as a ground of discrimination, alleging he was terminated without cause after suffering a workplace injury and filing a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendment was connected to the original allegations and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice given the early stage of the proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin against the Peel Police Services Board and the Windsor Police Services Board.

The Peel Police Services Board requested a summary hearing to dismiss the allegations against it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding racial comments during transport, a phone call to his employer, and comments by an investigating detective had no reasonable prospect of success, largely due to inconsistencies with his prior OIPRD complaint and shifting explanations.

The allegations against the Peel Police Services Board were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits against the Windsor Police Services Board.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in hiring based on ethnic origin.

The applicant argued that he was discriminated against because he was interviewed over the telephone rather than in person.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated arguments already made and failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, place of origin, sex, and age by his former family law lawyer.

The applicant alleged the respondent made a discriminatory comment about mothers getting custody in 2014, and later asked about his age when discussing access.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the 2014 comment due to delay, finding the applicant's desire to avoid conflict with his counsel did not constitute a good faith reason for missing the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination allegation, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to demonstrate any adverse impact resulting from the comment.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Manulife Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's submissions that the employer was federally regulated.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability filed production requests against the respondents and an interested party.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant's complete Wheel-Trans trip history from the respondents, finding the additional data was not arguably relevant to the remaining accommodation issues.

The Tribunal granted the request against the interested party, ordering it to disclose any known contact information for a security guard who was a potential witness to the events in question.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate four previously deferred human rights applications against the University of Ottawa and the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The applications had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided a Memorandum of Settlement withdrawing the OLRB matter, and the respondents consented to the re-activation.

The Tribunal granted the request, re-activated the deferred applications, declined to defer a fifth application, and extended the time for the respondents to file their Responses.

The respondent failed to comply with her disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, despite a prior case assessment direction.

After an unsuccessful mediation/adjudication attempt, the respondent requested a 4 to 6 week extension to provide disclosure.

The applicant argued for a shorter period of 14 to 21 days.

The Tribunal found that a 4 to 6 week extension would unduly delay the hearing process and instead ordered the respondent to deliver her arguably relevant documents by October 9, 2017, and her witness and document lists by October 16, 2017, failing which she may be prevented from presenting evidence at the hearing.

The applicant, a Master's student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being unsuccessful in her application for a research assistant position.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegedly false or misleading explanation provided to the applicant regarding the hiring decision could support an inference of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to mediation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged that the adjudicator was biased, acted improperly during the hearing, and that another Vice-chair should have heard the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts or evidence, and concluding that the applicant's bald assertions of bias did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was an attempt to re-argue the case based on disagreement with the outcome.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination based on disability in the provision of medical care at the respondent's emergency room.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and ignored his evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the Halton Police Services Board, a police detective, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), and the Independent Police Review Director.

The applications alleged discrimination in the execution of a search warrant and in the OIPRD's subsequent investigation and dismissal of their complaints.

The Tribunal held that the OIPRD and its Director are statutory decision-makers protected by adjudicative immunity, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction to review their findings.

The Tribunal also refused to permit new allegations regarding the OIPRD investigation process, as they were raised outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applications against the OIPRD and its Director were dismissed.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, providing a medical note indicating upcoming surgeries and a consultation with a pain specialist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application due to the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the medical information raised a serious issue regarding the applicant's ability to proceed, but declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide updated medical information by a specified date indicating his availability for a hearing.