HRTO 2017

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the disposition of the applicant's concurrent WSIB claim.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability after the respondent withdrew accommodated work following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the substance of the human rights application—whether the respondent failed in its duty to accommodate—would not be addressed in the WSIB proceeding, which focused on whether ongoing ankle problems were attributable to the workplace injury.

The Tribunal also noted that the WSIB proceedings were not at an advanced stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities based on disability.

The Tribunal removed a mistakenly named respondent on consent.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application has no reasonable prospect of success, noting it was unclear whether the applicant could prove a connection between the respondent's alleged conduct and her disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination and bias during a previous hearing he adjudicated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal confirmed that judicial immunity applies to administrative tribunal adjudicators and protects them from personal liability for actions taken in their decision-making capacity, even when breaches of natural justice are alleged.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by Emir Kovacevic and that the corporate respondent failed to adequately deal with the situation.

The applicant requested to add Mr. Kovacevic as a personal respondent and to amend the remedy sought from $250,000 to $500,000.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the corporate respondent might not be vicariously liable if Mr. Kovacevic is not a directing mind, and that amending the remedy at this stage is appropriate.

The applicant, who is legally blind, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She claimed she was excluded from applying for a Director position because the job posting required a valid driver's licence.

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

Because the applicant never actually applied for the position or requested accommodation, she did not experience any adverse treatment or exclusion, rendering the alleged discrimination purely theoretical.

The applicant, a nursing student, was deregistered from a clinical placement after a vulnerable sector screening revealed an unpardoned conviction for impaired driving.

He filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the Code's protection for 'record of offences' only applies to pardoned federal offences or provincial offences.

Since the applicant had not received a pardon for his federal conviction, his allegations did not engage a protected ground.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent Registrar's Letter requiring him to confirm his intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, relying on a Memorandum of Understanding containing a release signed by the applicant in exchange for $2,000.

The applicant argued the release was void because the payment did not meet the statutory requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal found the release was clear, drafted by the applicant, and intended to settle all employment-related matters.

Applying the Pritchard factors, the Tribunal concluded there was no duress and the applicant understood the consequences.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondents requested to remove the personal respondent, the Chief Executive Officer of the corporate respondent's parent company, as a party to the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and found that there was no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party, as the corporate respondent could be held vicariously liable and there were no allegations of direct involvement by the personal respondent.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming she was evicted for smoking medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had already adjudicated the eviction and the human rights allegations, concluding the eviction was for a no-fault reason and the landlord fulfilled the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to amend a human rights application to add her daughter as a claimant and include allegations that the daughter experienced the same discrimination as her son regarding the respondent school board's failure to accommodate their medical condition.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that adding the daughter was the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the matter.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing document production.

The respondent was ordered to provide a list and copies of the documents it intended to rely on at the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for an order requiring the applicant to disclose documents released to him by the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, finding that such documents are inadmissible in civil proceedings under section 50(6) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, and were released to the applicant under strict conditions.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

He submitted additional medical documents, alleging a cover-up by the respondent's doctors.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the new documents did not explain the delay in filing the application.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application after his union grievances were resolved at arbitration.

The respondent objected on the basis that the request was filed out of time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings within 60 days of the conclusion of the arbitration, as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

As the applicant provided no good faith reason for the delay, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal allowed incidents 1-8 to proceed to a full hearing, finding a dispute on facts.

Incident 9, regarding a delayed Record of Employment, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success for reprisal.

The applicant's request to amend the application to add the ground of disability based on a recent diagnosis was denied due to prejudice to the respondent and because the respondent had no knowledge of the disability during employment.

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

The Tribunal and the respondent experienced difficulties delivering mail to the applicant.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Registrar's directions to provide updated contact information, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued he was unwell on the hearing date and provided an email sent to his employer stating he could not attend work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the email demonstrated the applicant had planned to attend work rather than the hearing, and noted he failed to notify the Tribunal of his absence.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of respecting the adjudicative process and the public resources involved.

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

After requesting to reschedule mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing him to provide alternate dates and advise of his intentions.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss for delay, finding the application was filed on the last day of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization to protect her from further discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add a reprisal claim based on the respondent's threat to seek costs, finding the communication was protected by absolute privilege.

The applicant was permitted to increase her claimed damages to $220,000.