HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal.

The Tribunal was informed the matter had settled but the parties failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement Form.

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

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response.

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments would not prejudice the applicant and that a hearing date had not yet been set.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents and a complete Response from the respondent.

The respondent had filed an incomplete Response that did not address the merits of the Application, citing a changeover in its Board of Directors.

The Tribunal denied the request for document production as premature, but ordered the respondent to deliver and file a completed Form 2 Response within 20 days, noting that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal refusing to allow the respondent to present evidence or make submissions on unraised issues.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing seeking to dismiss the human rights application.

The applicant failed to file a response to the Request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being removed from an occasional teaching assignment.

The respondent school board requested to remove the school and an individual as respondents, and sought a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The applicant requested to add another individual respondent.

The Tribunal held that the school board was the proper organizational respondent and removed the individual respondent, finding no compelling reason to include them since the board could accept liability.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that evidence was required to determine if discrimination was a factor in the decision.

The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry regarding an application that she had withdrawn three years earlier.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the file had been closed upon withdrawal and the matter was at an end, meaning there was no active application upon which to file requests.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her availability for a rescheduled mediation session and later warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal committed fundamental errors of law and misinterpreted key facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that allowed the applicant's human rights application.

The respondents argued that the decision conflicted with established law, that public interest outweighed finality, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents failed to identify any conflict with Tribunal jurisprudence, failed to establish factors outweighing the public interest in finality, and provided vague allegations that did not meet the test for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal and to modify the requested remedies.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding that they provided particulars of incidents already detailed in the application, that there was no prejudice to the respondent, and that sufficient time remained before the hearing for the respondent to prepare.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision consolidating ten human rights applications filed against the same respondents.

The applications arose from the same factual circumstances and raised the same issues.

As no party objected to the proposed consolidation, the Tribunal ordered the applications to be processed together and scheduled for mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to comply with pre-hearing disclosure requirements.

The adjudicator discovered that an extension had previously been granted but not recorded in the file.

The respondent consented to the reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the Request for Reconsideration and ordered the matter to proceed to mediation or hearing.

The applicants filed separate applications under the Human Rights Code against the respondent.

A joint mediation was scheduled, but the applicants failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicants warning that failure to respond could result in their applications being deemed abandoned.

As the applicants did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and age regarding the denial of funding for the HPV vaccination.

The respondent School Board requested to be removed from the application, arguing it merely provided a location for vaccinations administered by the Health Unit and did not provide a vaccination service.

The Tribunal agreed that there was no service relationship between the applicants and the School Board regarding vaccinations, and removed the School Board as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent hospital and doctor regarding their refusal to share his wife's medical information and permit him to visit her while she was a patient.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not the patient receiving services, and absent his wife's consent to disclose medical information, there was no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a self-represented racialized person, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after his invitation to an oral interview for a caseworker position was rescinded.

The respondent claimed the invitation was sent in error because the applicant had failed the data entry component of the written assessment.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting the rescinded invitation to a prohibited ground of discrimination, nor any evidence that the respondent's decision-maker was aware of the applicant's race.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing, which was converted to a preliminary hearing after the applicant claimed she was medically unfit to participate.

Despite multiple directions and warnings, the applicant refused to attend the scheduled telephone conference calls to discuss how her applications should be handled.

The Tribunal found that her refusal to attend constituted an abuse of process, dismissed the applications, and ordered that she must obtain Tribunal consent before filing any future applications against the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by her instructor during an international placement in Cuba.

The instructor requested to be removed as a personal respondent, arguing the corporate respondent (the College) was liable for his actions in the course of employment.

He also requested a summary hearing on the basis that the alleged conduct occurred outside Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to be removed, noting the College had terminated his employment and denied vicarious liability, making his individual conduct central to the application.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a summary hearing, finding the jurisdictional issues would be better resolved after hearing evidence on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on gender identity, age, sex, and reprisal.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, record of offences, and reprisal against a community health centre and a registered nurse.

The allegations stemmed from a medical appointment where the nurse asked health questions and subsequently consulted a physician, who reported the applicant to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, resulting in a license suspension.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the treatment to a protected ground or establish an intention to reprise.