Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming he developed a dry cough due to environmental sensitivities at the respondent's office.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence of a disability and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to continue on the issue of whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on a perceived disability, as the applicant was terminated shortly after raising air quality concerns and working remotely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on next steps for determining the Application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period without citing facts constituting good faith.

The applicant failed to file submissions in response to the NOID despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against his former family law lawyer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to demonstrate that the previous decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure, or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability, as well as reprisal, following his termination.

The applicant had a history of absenteeism and was disciplined for spitting in garbage cans at work.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant had a disability, nor any evidence linking his discipline and termination to his race or age.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding that the applicant had not attempted to enforce his rights under the Code prior to his termination, which was based on his attitude and demeanour during a disciplinary meeting.

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

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

The applicant emailed the Tribunal stating she would not attend, citing dissatisfaction with a previous direction.

Despite being warned that failure to attend could result in dismissal, the applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a final decision dismissing her applications and an interim decision denying her requests for anonymization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, as she merely sought to re-argue issues already decided and did not present new determinative evidence or demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The requests for reconsideration were denied.

The applicant, an 8-year-old minor hockey player, alleged discrimination based on age and sex after being shown an age-inappropriate presentation and subsequently experiencing reduced ice time and bullying when his grandfather complained.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the alleged conduct lacked any connection to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a registered nurse with a visible disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her a position in the Post Anaesthetic Care Unit due to a negative performance reference and her disability.

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

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of unfairness and a negative reference were true, she failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's decision to her disability.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on creed.

She also filed a union grievance based on the same factual matrix, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, while the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical, posing a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, while also pursuing a related civil action in court.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application due to the concurrent court action and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the court proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting that the underlying history in both proceedings was essentially the same.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because there were ongoing grievances related to the same allegations.

The applicant did not make submissions on the deferral request.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its general practice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the merits hearing due to a medical condition.

The applicant provided a medical consultation note indicating an inability to properly prepare for or participate in the hearing.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's health constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was ordered to provide further medical reports regarding his ability to participate in a rescheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to confirm his intention to participate in the scheduled hearing by the deadline set in a Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was canceled.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request and failed to comply with a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The Tribunal also noted that the application, which concerned the conduct of a Crown Attorney and the terms of a bail order, was beyond its jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an order for the production of all arguably relevant documents under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure prior to a scheduled preliminary hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was premature as the preliminary hearing was set to address specific issues such as delay and abuse of process, not the merits of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a blanket request for all arguably relevant documents was improper and premature at this stage, as the preliminary hearing issues did not touch on the merits of the application.

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

The applicant sought to introduce a new medical note and argued public policy concerns regarding medical cannabis.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new medical evidence was not determinative and could have been obtained earlier, and that the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence or involve a matter of general public importance.

The respondent school board requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in its disciplinary processes, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) during an expulsion appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the CFSRB only determined whether the applicant committed the acts and should be expelled under the Education Act, but did not review the respondent's disciplinary processes for discrimination.

The application will proceed.

The applicant in a contravention of settlement application requested an extension of time to file hearing documents, an adjournment of the hearing, and that the hearing be completed in one day.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to substantiate her inability to proceed or to justify the requested accommodations.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer regarding his termination and by his union for failing to pursue a grievance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer because it was filed more than one year after the termination, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the entire period of delay.

The application against the union was timely, but the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide information regarding a concurrent Ontario Labour Relations Board complaint and evidence that the union's refusal to grieve was discriminatory, failing which the application would be abandoned.