Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior investigation by Ombudsman Ontario appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an Ombudsman investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of the Code as it lacks judicial or quasi-judicial guarantees of procedural fairness.

However, noting that the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or reprisal, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration process.

She argued the arbitration hearing was cancelled without good reason.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was only briefly rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances and that the grievance process was not unduly delayed.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding a vehicle purchase that occurred in October 2014.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the respondent's failure to communicate delayed his filing.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another process to conclude or for the respondent to reply does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the applicant's allegation regarding a racial slur on a bulletin board to proceed.

The respondents argued the allegation was untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that the interim decision failed to provide reasons on this issue.

The Tribunal found that while the interim decision was subject to reconsideration, the respondents did not meet the threshold criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting the interim decision was based on preliminary submissions and the respondents could still raise the timeliness issue at the hearing on the merits.

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

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's estate to provide a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee or request that the matter be held in abeyance.

The estate failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who has restricted mobility, alleged discrimination in services because the respondent laundromat did not have an accessible washroom.

The applicant initially alleged the respondent had a main floor washroom but refused him access, which was proven false.

At the hearing, the applicant argued the respondent was legally required to build an accessible washroom under the AODA or the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no legal obligation for the laundromat to provide a washroom for customers, and that the respondent had attempted to accommodate the applicant by directing him to a nearby accessible washroom.

An allegation of reprisal was also dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing their application as abandoned after failing to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID).

The applicant's representative asserted that he did not receive the NOID, despite it being sent by email and regular mail.

The Tribunal accepted that the representative did not receive the NOID and noted that the applicant had contacted the Tribunal for a status update prior to the dismissal, indicating the application was not abandoned.

The Request for Reconsideration was allowed.

The applicant, a tenant in a seniors' building paying rent geared to income, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on receipt of public assistance, age, disability, association, and reprisal.

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 while the applicant may face difficulties proving his allegations, the application could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success at this stage.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed but ordered the applicant to file a revised application clarifying his allegations and their connection to specific Code grounds.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his intentions regarding the application by a specified date, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a security guard made discriminatory comments based on ancestry and place of origin.

The applicant also commenced a Small Claims Court action regarding the same events of April 27, 2016, but attempted to exclude the human rights allegations from the civil claim.

The Tribunal held that splitting the case into two separate proceedings arising from the same factual transaction constitutes an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking clarification of the role of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) in the human rights application.

The applicant requested that OECTA either be declared a party and directed to provide information, or be removed as an addressee and participant.

OECTA confirmed it was not named as a respondent and had no intention of seeking intervention status.

The Tribunal ordered that OECTA receive no further notices of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated employer, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and subsequent communications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary/summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to call in or provide any explanation for his absence.

The respondent and proposed respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by another tenant and their guest, which the respondent landlord failed to address.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had concurrent jurisdiction to apply the Code and had already awarded the applicant a rent abatement and costs for the same underlying facts.

The application was dismissed as the substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant, a self-identified visible minority whose first language is not English, alleged that he was discriminated against during a transit operator training program because of his accent.

He claimed his trainer criticized his English accent and that this was a factor in his failure to complete the program.

The Tribunal found that while the trainer did comment on the applicant's accent, there was no evidence linking the applicant's place of origin to the decision to terminate his training.

The respondent had selected the applicant knowing of his accent, successfully trained another candidate with an accent, and extended the applicant's training due to distracted driving concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging the respondent school board contravened a settlement agreement.

The applicant argued the school board breached confidentiality by disclosing its own contravention application to two individuals who were respondents in the original application but did not sign the minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the original decision conflicted with established case law or Tribunal procedure, or that the matter involved an issue of general or public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board denied him benefits for a serious head injury sustained at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared outside its jurisdiction as it challenged the decision of another adjudicative process and was filed out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of other administrative bodies, which are protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant, a Black gay man from the Caribbean, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sexual orientation.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment—including denial of a promotion, denial of a loan, and termination of employment for absenteeism—to his race or sexual orientation.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to allege any conduct that would constitute discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted or a provincial offence.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed it.