HRTO 2017

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of incidents that occurred between the filing of the application and his resignation.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments did not alter the nature of the allegations or the grounds of discrimination, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions regarding the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Notice of Incomplete Application, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply and granted multiple extensions.

After the applicant failed to file a Reply by the final deadline or respond to the Tribunal's communications, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because her counsel became ill and was unable to attend.

The applicant opposed the request without providing a specific reason.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that counsel's illness constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued she mistakenly believed she had two years to file and that her disability caused anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mistaken belief and health issues did not establish good faith, as she was able to retain counsel and pursue employment standards claims during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, which the Tribunal deferred pending the completion of related WSIB proceedings.

After the WSIB appeals process concluded due to the respondent's failure to file a confirmation of appeal, the applicant requested to re-activate the application.

Noting the completion of the WSIB proceedings and the absence of any objection from the respondent, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, alleged that the respondent public health unit discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and citizenship when it failed to select him for an interview in four separate job competitions.

The applicant argued that the respondent's hiring practices, including its assessment of language proficiency and foreign experience, were discriminatory and created systemic barriers.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

For each position, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant either did not meet the minimum qualifications or that the candidates selected for interviews were better qualified.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer based on gender identity, race, colour, ethnic origin, and ancestry.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence connecting the alleged workplace mistreatment to any protected grounds under the Code, nor any evidence of reprisal.

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

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application approximately 21 months after the decision was issued.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the timeline to file a reconsideration request and cited his disability.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for delay and the applicant provided no particulars on how his disability affected his ability to file on time.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent Tribunal letter.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's Case Assessment Direction, which scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a Case Assessment Direction is not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal also varied its previous direction, ordering that the parties are not permitted to file any further documentation prior to the summary hearing.

The applicant filed an Application alleging housing discrimination based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence, including medical documents and text messages, warranted a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response and indicated the Application would continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her son 17 months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if there was a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's personal circumstances, including caring for her son on the autism spectrum, living in a shelter, motor vehicle accidents, and medical evidence of anxiety and depression, established a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the respondents on whether the delay resulted in substantial prejudice before making a final decision.

Following a finding that the respondent infringed the applicant's rights under the Human Rights Code, a hearing was convened to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant presented evidence of an urgent need for psychological counselling due to severe distress.

With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to pay $15,000 in monetary compensation to allow the applicant to arrange treatment independently, with full reasons to follow.

The applicant applied for an ESL teaching position and was not hired.

When she inquired about the reason, the respondent accused her of making racist comments and threatened to report her to an accreditation body.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that being accused of racism is not a discriminatory act, and the respondent's threat did not constitute reprisal under the Code as the applicant had not previously claimed or enforced her Code rights.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application and indicated she would not attend.

The Tribunal converted the hearing to a teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend or provide a valid reason for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate in the proceeding.

The applicant alleged that police officers assaulted him in a Salvation Army chapel and stole his property because of his race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

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

The Tribunal found that even assuming the applicant's version of events was true, he failed to point to any evidence connecting the alleged mistreatment to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

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