Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination based on ethnic origin and race, to add two individual respondents, and for particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the proposed allegations too vague and unrelated to the original application.

The request to add personal respondents was denied as there was no compelling juridical reason and they had not been served.

The request for particulars was deemed premature.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Although the OLRB dismissed her Employment Standards Act complaint, a hearing for her Occupational Health and Safety Act complaint remained pending.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of inconsistent findings remained due to overlapping facts and issues, and ordered the application to remain deferred until the OLRB determines the OHSA complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, stating she was in India caring for a parent and obtaining a dual citizenship card.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, especially given the applicant's failure to request it before leaving the country.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's repeated failure to meet her pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant sought several interim orders in his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent health unit regarding his practicum placement.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add Western University as a respondent, finding no allegations that could support a Code violation by the university and that it would be unfair to add them.

The Tribunal also denied requests for document production of statistical data, referral to the Human Rights Commission, and an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his application to include an additional non-monetary remedy.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of arguably relevant documents, specifically video recordings and arrest records, which the applicant had referenced during a summary hearing.

The applicant opposed the request, claiming he no longer had access to the raw data and could not use the recordings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents in his possession and to provide a written explanation regarding the status and relevance of the arrest records and recordings, in accordance with Rule 16.1.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against Unifor Local 707 on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application against Unifor Local 707 abandoned and dismissed it, removing the union from the style of cause.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex, as well as workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration proceeding that raised the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral and filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing concerns that a potential witness was moving abroad.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request to avoid inconsistent decisions and denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's failure to file required declarations and finding that the witness's relocation did not justify an expedited hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase and particularize her claim for monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and for lost opportunity.

The respondents opposed the request to the extent it sought to withdraw or alter admissions.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds or parties, nor was she seeking to withdraw or alter admissions.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the materials were not filed by a specified deadline, the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a legal clinic on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance.

The allegations related to the clinic's representation of her between 2011 and 2013, and its subsequent refusal to represent her in 2014.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the 2011-2013 allegations as untimely, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the 2014 refusal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the 2014 allegations, concluding there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could establish a link between the denial of services and her disability or receipt of public assistance.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add details regarding an alleged breach of the collective agreement and to increase the monetary compensation claimed.

The respondent consented to the request and the intervenor took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the civil matter had not yet been scheduled for trial and raised concerns about the individual respondent's advanced age.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature because the civil action had not concluded and the risk of inconsistent findings remained.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add new grounds of discrimination, reprisal, a new narrative, and additional remedies.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the matter was in its early stages and the applicant was previously unrepresented, but denied the request to add remedies against individuals who were not named as parties to the application.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's prior Ministry of Labour complaint regarding termination pay appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined the applicant's entitlement to termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and did not address the Code-related claims of discrimination based on disability and age.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent reminder.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of two interim decisions regarding production orders and hearing transcripts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decisions were not final decisions and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request.

The Tribunal also directed the self-represented applicant to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 within 7 days, warning that failure to do so would limit his ability to rely on documents or provide testimony at the hearing.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated due to age discrimination.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence—that he was the youngest employee in his division and was once called a 'young punk' by a supervisor—was insufficient to establish a link between his termination and his age, especially given his acknowledged performance and reliability issues.

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

The respondents requested a deferral of the applicant's human rights application, which alleged sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, pending the outcome of their appeal of an Employment Standards Act (ESA) decision regarding the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal risk of inconsistent results because the human rights application did not involve the termination of employment and there was a lack of significant overlap between the issues in the two proceedings.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the mandatory bar in section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have deferred the application pending the conclusion of her civil claim against the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the previous decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure, and noting that deferral was impossible because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.