HRTO 2017

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal, and subsequently requested an interim remedy to access release time, improve his work environment, and restrict communications with the personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the significant onus required for an interim remedy, as the requested orders were not necessary to ensure the Tribunal could award a complete and effective remedy at the end of a hearing should a Code violation be found.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance.

The grievance process concluded in November 2016, but the applicant did not file her request to reactivate until May 2017, well beyond the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the time limit and was not mentally prepared to proceed.

The Tribunal found the six-month delay to be significant and not adequately explained, concluding that the failure to inform herself of the Rules did not meet the test of good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original application alleged discrimination regarding a credit card application with a federally-regulated bank.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any new facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence that would justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability against a bank and its mortgage subsidiary.

The allegations related to the bank's failure to cancel credit card insurance, its refusal to change the frequency of mortgage payments, and reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the core issues involved banking and lending, which fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal noted that even if the credit insurance issue fell under provincial jurisdiction, it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the bank's actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application.

The request was filed more than 10 months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit under Rule 26.1, without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant sought to introduce documents that were not new or previously unavailable and argued that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration and dismissed the request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to have been filed outside the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, without citing facts constituting good faith for the delay.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

After the applicant's counsel withdrew, the Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and to provide mutually agreeable dates for mediation.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal.

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

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application and was scheduled for an in-person hearing.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and an electronic hearing due to illness, providing a medical note that the adjudicator found lacked specific details regarding her limitations.

The requests were denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, the respondents requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to attend without sufficient justification and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a federal employee, alleged discrimination based on disability when she was denied coverage for medical marijuana under the Public Service Health Care Plan.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the matter falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and determined that the respondent Authority, created under a federal statute to oversee a benefit plan for federal employees, falls under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding accommodations during a course.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application for delay, removal of the individual respondent, and dismissal for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested anonymization.

The Tribunal found the application timely as the events constituted a series of incidents ending with the final exam.

The Tribunal refused to remove the individual respondent, denied the anonymization request, and found the application could not be dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the adjudicator's recusal, alleging apprehension of bias, actual bias, errors of fact, and denial of procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's disagreements with prior rulings, including the denial of anonymization and refusal to grant further extensions, did not constitute evidence of bias.

The adjudicator noted the request was untimely and merely an attempt to re-argue previously decided matters.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking a direction that the applicant deliver materials to it by mail, as it had experienced issues receiving materials by email.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that under Rule 1.21 of the Tribunal's Rules, delivery by email is only permitted if the receiving party consents.

As the respondent preferred mail and did not consent to email, the applicant was directed to deliver her materials by regular mail.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences after his employment was terminated shortly after he was charged with criminal offences.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that his work restrictions were a factor in his termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the ground of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to convictions, not mere charges.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability.

He claimed that co-workers harassed him for reporting their alleged illegal conduct, that a co-worker made sexually explicit comments to him, and that the employer failed to accommodate his nosebleed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the general harassment was not linked to a Code ground, the employer responded reasonably to the sexual harassment complaint, the comments did not create a poisoned work environment, and the nosebleed did not constitute a disability under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent reprised against him with respect to his employment, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he was threatened with job loss after raising health and safety concerns regarding the use of a chemical product without adequate personal protective equipment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations related to occupational health and safety, not to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, and therefore did not fall within the Code's reprisal protections.

The applicant failed to comply with a Tribunal direction to disclose relevant documents.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to participate in the proceeding and comply with the disclosure direction, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for production of documents and to amend her application.

The Tribunal denied the production request as premature because the hearing dates and document delivery deadlines had not yet been set.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add new factual allegations, finding it would cause delay and prejudice, but granted the request to amend the remedial relief sought.

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

A concurrent Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) application was also filed containing similar allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the DFR proceeding.

The respondents supported the deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application because of the overlap in facts and human rights issues, noting that the DFR outcome could be determinative.

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but they failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement Form (Form 25).

After the Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm the intention to proceed, no response was received.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.