HRTO 2017

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding a condominium meeting held on a religious holiday.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely repeated submissions made at the hearing and failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondents requested to add VP Protection Inc. and GDI Services (Canada) LP as respondents, and to remove Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. as a respondent in a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that both VP Protection and GDI could potentially be held liable for the actions of their employees during the relevant periods.

The Tribunal also found that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. was a separate corporate entity with no involvement in the facts at issue.

The Tribunal ordered that VP Protection and GDI be added as respondents, and that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. be removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the issue, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to allege any Code infringement and failed to indicate it was brought on behalf of another person.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions to provide written submissions.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant sought to consolidate two human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal by the respondent employer.

The respondent argued the second application should be deferred pending the resolution of the first.

The Tribunal found that because the parties and the workplace were the same, and there was an overlap of issues and evidence, it was most fair, just, and expeditious to consolidate the applications.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to delay.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to provide new evidence or reasons, and merely restated his initial position.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed after his apartment was inspected following a fire in the unit above him.

He claimed the fire department targeted his unit because he grows medical marijuana, and that the Electrical Safety Authority and its employee discriminated against him during the subsequent electrical repair and reconnection process.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the respondents' actions were connected to his disability or creed rather than standard safety protocols.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications by the specified deadlines.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Service more than a year after the alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to stress, depression, a shoulder injury, housing issues, and other traumatizing events.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence showing her disability prevented her from pursuing her rights in a timely manner, nor did she show how her other difficulties prevented a timely filing.

The application was dismissed as untimely and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on gender identity.

After the respondent filed an Amended Response requesting dismissal, the applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to multiple Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant sought an order for the production of unredacted police records from the London Police Service.

The Police Service had previously provided redacted documents under MFIPPA but required the respondent's consent or a Tribunal order to release unredacted versions.

As the respondent was not participating in the proceedings, the applicant could not obtain his consent.

The Tribunal found the requested materials arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application and ordered the Police Service to produce the records, subject to specific agreed-upon redactions.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the occasional teachers list for failing to re-register for the academic year.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking his dismissal, his inability to secure permanent employment, or alleged record alterations to his Indigenous ancestry or a prior complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, sexual harassment, and pregnancy.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding, the applicant requested reactivation of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Small Claims Court proceeding appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal for filing a WSIB claim.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding determined whether the injury was work-related, whereas the human rights application raised the distinct legal issue of whether the respondents discriminated or reprised against the applicant for filing the claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability, culminating in his dismissal.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the applicant's dismissal.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that subsequent grievance meetings constituted new incidents of discrimination, noting that the grievance process does not engage the Code and the request to amend the application was itself untimely.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an educational assistant, alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs when it transferred her to a different school, and that it engaged in reprisal regarding her sick leave and long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision to transfer the applicant was based on her doctor's recommendation to negotiate a new work location due to workplace stress.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the new location did not meet her disability-related needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the employer withheld benefits or forms with an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services, housing, contracts, and vocational association membership.

The application challenged decisions made by the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the denial and calculation of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body or the calculation of benefits.

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 hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated after he requested accommodation for a disability.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, finding a substantial risk of inconsistent factual findings if the two proceedings were to proceed concurrently.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their human rights applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as they did not present new determinative evidence, but rather attempted to reargue their case and repair perceived deficiencies.

The request for reconsideration was denied.