Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant requested that her scheduled in-person hearing be converted to a telephone hearing because she did not want to see the respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that credibility was a key issue and required in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding that assessing credibility would be difficult over the telephone and that the applicant had not provided any Code-related reasons to justify her absence.

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

Although both parties agreed to mediation, the applicant failed to provide available dates.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal warning letter regarding abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because their counsel had a conflicting civil trial.

The respondent and intervenor consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing to July 12 and 13, 2016, with corresponding adjustments to pre-hearing disclosure deadlines.

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

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

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, specifically challenging the cancellation of a mediation and the partial dismissal of her application before that body.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application must be dismissed, as the allegations related entirely to the decisions of the respondent in its adjudicative role, which are protected by adjudicative immunity and cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events described did not appear to be connected to Ontario.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

Following a full-day hearing on the merits and a denied request to anonymize the decision, the applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal, requesting only that the decision reflect the stage at which the withdrawal occurred.

The Tribunal granted the request, the application was withdrawn, and the file was closed.

The respondent school board requested an order to remove the individually named respondent, a school principal, from the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the school board acknowledged the principal was acting within the course of his employment and assumed responsibility for his conduct.

Applying established principles, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party, as the corporate respondent could fully remedy any alleged Code infringement and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board.

The original application alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, sex, and marital status related to his arrests and a strip search.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he was attempting to reargue issues of credibility, weight of evidence, and findings of fact already determined at the hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending a WSIB appeal and sought production of the applicant's WSIB file before filing its Response.

The Tribunal denied the request at this stage, finding it unclear how the WSIB file was relevant to the core allegation that the respondent failed to offer the applicant work after he was cleared to return.

The respondent was directed to file its Response within 14 days.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he had recently retained representation who was unavailable for the hearing dates.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments outside the 14-day rescheduling period are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that retaining counsel after hearing dates have been fixed is not an extraordinary circumstance, and parties are expected to retain representatives who are available on the scheduled dates.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent complaint before the OmbudService for Life & Health Insurance (OLHI).

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing a need for immediate financial assistance.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings, specifically whether the applicant was properly denied long-term disability benefits due to a pre-existing condition.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLHI complaint.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related legal proceedings.

The applicant claimed that all motions to appeal had been dismissed.

The respondent opposed the request and provided evidence that the Ontario Court of Appeal had granted leave to appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, as the related appeal proceedings were not yet concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than six years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

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

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing a civil action against the respondent, which concluded in 2015.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Cornwall Court and a prosecutor during a traffic ticket prosecution.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter, as the decisions of presiding judges are protected by adjudicative immunity and the actions of prosecutors are protected by prosecutorial immunity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant passed away after filing an application under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's counsel requested that the Tribunal hold the application in abeyance pending the appointment of an estate trustee.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance for four months, noting that it has no authority to proceed with an application on behalf of a deceased applicant without an appointed estate trustee.

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

The Tribunal erroneously deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings that had already been settled.

After almost two years, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The respondent objected, citing delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair and contrary to section 43(2)1 of the Human Rights Code to dispose of the application due to the Tribunal's own error in deferring it.

The request to reactivate was granted and the matter was directed to mediation.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order for the production of the applicant's entire medical file from his physician.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it was too late, overly broad, and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical condition was in issue, making the medical records arguably relevant.

However, the Tribunal agreed the request was overly broad and ordered the applicant to produce the medical file limited to the relevant time period from the date of the original injury in September 2012 to the present.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability in the termination of her employment.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was largely dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer and appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant factual overlap regarding the reasons for termination and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.