Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because the applicant failed to provide witness statements as directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while the applicant failed to comply with the disclosure rules, he would generally be permitted to testify to facts already contained in his pleadings but would not be permitted to give evidence on matters not covered by the pleadings or call witnesses for whom no statement was provided.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing based on the pleadings.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found they had discriminated against the applicant based on sex (pregnancy) and family status, and engaged in reprisal.

The respondents challenged only the quantum of the remedy, arguing the awards for general damages and lost wages were too high and in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondents failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established case law or raised a matter of general or public importance under Rule 26.5(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add a respondent, replace the adjudicator, and obtain a copy of a tenancy agreement.

The applicant's newly retained paralegal also requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that last-minute retention of a representative does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The request to add a respondent was denied due to the unfairness of adding a party after two days of hearing had already occurred.

The recusal request was deferred to the start of the next hearing date.

The respondent was ordered to produce the lease agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and an individual lawyer who acted as opposing counsel in a family law proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the Code does not cover the relationship between a party and opposing counsel, nor does it cover the Law Society's adjudicative function in handling complaints.

Furthermore, the application was filed more than seven years after the alleged incidents, well beyond the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the applicant to undergo a physiotherapist assessment to determine if she could perform the essential duties of her position, and if not, she would resign in exchange for general damages.

The physiotherapist concluded she could not perform the duties, but the applicant refused to resign, claiming the assessment was inaccurate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had not breached the settlement and that the applicant was simply dissatisfied with the outcome of the agreed-upon assessment process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and contracts nearly two years after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the last incident was the Tribunal's refusal to let him testify a second time in his son's separate case, but the Tribunal found this did not constitute continued discrimination by the respondent.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to challenge a decision by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board to direct an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as the conduct complained of was a quasi-judicial decision protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground and failed to explain the basis for the alleged reprisal.

The applicant was directed to respond to the NOID by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The union respondents requested summary dismissal on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing a prior grievance settlement dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents, finding no facts were alleged linking their representation to a Code ground.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, as the grievance settlement only covered a portion of the time period during which the applicant alleged discrimination.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The WSIB Appeal Resolution Officer had rendered a decision, which the applicant was appealing to the WSIAT.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that proceeding with the application while the WSIAT appeal was pending would amount to an inappropriate collateral attack and risk inconsistent findings of fact.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant requested an interim order to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal and to allow her physicians to testify by teleconference.

The respondent did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it was based on facts already pleaded and caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal also permitted the physicians to testify by video conference or teleconference, noting the respondent failed to show any significant prejudice.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his Application to include new factual allegations and remedies, and to defer the hearing pending the outcome of a civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request to add new factual allegations, finding it would prejudice the respondents given the late stage of the proceeding.

The request for certain new remedies was also denied, though the balance of the remedial amendments was permitted.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting the Application was scheduled for hearing within days while the civil action was only at the pleadings stage.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications against the same respondent should be consolidated.

The applications alleged identical discrimination on the basis of age, family status, marital status, and sex.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and noted the common issues of fact and law.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to proceed to a one-day hearing.

The applicant failed to attend mediation and subsequently failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the exchange of documents and witness statements.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to respond or provide the required materials.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The Tribunal had deferred the application pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting the status of the grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he and his counsel failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant's counsel explained that he had incorrectly diarized the hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant should not be prejudiced by his counsel's error, and noted that this factor outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed reactivation on the basis that the arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that it cannot exercise its power to dismiss an application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code unless the application is active.

A preliminary hearing was ordered to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and failure to advance in her career.

Prior to filing the application, she filed a union grievance raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid inconsistent decisions.