HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application more than three years after the alleged incidents of discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police and the City of Orillia.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to disability, a series of incidents, and the late discoverability of damages.

The Tribunal found no medical evidence that the applicant was so debilitated as to be prevented from pursuing his rights, rejected the series of incidents argument, and held that the discoverability of damages is not a recognized good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the respondent's request, warning that failure to do so might result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The individual respondent filed a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, resulting in an automatic stay of proceedings against him.

The franchisee respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that the application against the individual respondent be stayed, and that the franchisee be deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived its right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a day replacement position.

The applicant also filed a grievance with his union regarding the same issue, which was referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical and that proceeding simultaneously would create a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The notice sent by mail was returned as moved/unknown, and the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent email direction to provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled hearing, stating she was not physically or mentally capable of proceeding, but provided no medical documentation to support her request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, and directed the parties to comply with disclosure deadlines or face potential consequences, including dismissal of the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent college regarding a 2014 leave of absence, inappropriate comments by professors, and a group assignment where students refused to work with him.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2014 leave of absence allegations as untimely, finding the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the professors' comments and the group assignment to proceed, finding sufficient notice was provided and the respondent failed to establish they had no reasonable prospect of success.

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

An employee of the respondent, whose conduct was the subject of the allegations, filed a Request to Intervene to defend her reputation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the employee's interests would be adequately addressed through her anticipated testimony as a witness for the respondent, and she would not provide assistance to the Tribunal that could not otherwise be provided.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race or colour at school.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and failed to address certain allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not met the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of ethnic origin, citizenship, and marital status after her rental application was denied and she was removed from her ex-spouse's rental unit by police.

The Tribunal found that the respondent denied the rental application for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including unstable employment, poor credit, and lack of rental history.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's actions in changing the locks and having the applicant removed were driven by the need to secure vacant possession for new tenants, not by discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought dismissal of the application in its Response.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a Reply by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination arising from an alleged assault at a school.

The application named a Crown Attorney as a respondent, alleging he improperly advised police against laying charges.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the Crown Attorney on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the Crown's review of the police investigation and advice regarding charges falls squarely within the core elements of prosecutorial discretion and is immune from review under the Human Rights Code.

The application against the Crown Attorney was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was granted an extension to respond to the NOID but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts on the ground of disability, claiming her employment contract's 60-day notice requirement was discriminatory.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already dealt with the substance of the application by dismissing the applicant's ESA claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO decision did not address the substantive human rights claims, as it merely concluded there was no employer-employee relationship.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction to confirm his intentions regarding the application, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and ethnic origin, claiming he was denied a promotion in 1991 and did not receive appropriate pay increases until his retirement in 2002.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 15 years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he only recently received an investigation report from another employee's complaint and had previously attempted mediation at the Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal held a preliminary summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, delay, or because the matters were dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the application required a hearing on the merits to resolve factual disputes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that prior WSIB and Ministry of Labour proceedings did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The application was allowed to proceed, and the parties were directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the alleged incident and lacked facts demonstrating good faith for the delay.

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

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