Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence under Rule 26.5(a) and sought to amend his application to allege a violation of section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated arguments previously made and failed to establish any threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against an organization and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of five individual respondents, arguing the organization was liable for their alleged conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also granted a request by another individual respondent for a summary hearing to determine if the application against him has no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination because accessible seating for Toronto Blue Jays games could not be purchased online in 2016.

The respondents subsequently changed their policy to allow online purchases and brought a request to dismiss the applications as moot.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applications were not moot because the policy change did not address the alleged past discrimination and the applicant had not received the remedies sought, including public interest remedies and monetary compensation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination against the respondent, which appeared to be a federally-regulated employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) requesting written submissions on jurisdiction.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The application was previously stayed due to the respondent filing for bankruptcy.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she intended to bring a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled preliminary hearing.

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the applicant's request to continue cross-examining a witness and several requests for orders during the proceeding.

The Tribunal limited further cross-examination, finding it had been sufficient to disclose fully and fairly all relevant matters.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests to remove opposing counsel, to amend previous interim decisions, and for the adjudicator to recuse himself for bias, finding no basis for any of the requests.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to order an individual respondent to attend the next hearing dates, noting that parties must be prepared to make submissions regarding her medical absence if she does not attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application six years after the termination of his employment.

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

The applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, arguing only that he had pursued other claims including a grievance and a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal found that pursuing alternative recourses does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a bookkeeper placed at a client's office by an accounting firm, alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondents claimed she was dismissed for poor performance.

The Tribunal found that while there were performance issues, the client company decided to terminate her placement earlier than it otherwise would have because she was pregnant and leaving soon anyway.

The accounting firm, having no other work for her, terminated her employment and its principal reacted angrily upon learning of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal found joint liability for the discriminatory termination and individual liability for the principal's harassing conduct, awarding damages for lost wages and injury to dignity.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing under Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of contact information for a security company and a lease agreement from the respondents and a third party.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the security company's contact information, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for the lease agreement, finding it was not relevant to whether the respondents complied with their duty to accommodate.

The applicants, employed as correctional officers, filed human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, their legal counsel, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, ceased representation due to funding issues.

The applicants requested an adjournment and an extension of time to file witness statements and documents.

The Tribunal found the sudden loss of counsel and the complexity of the case constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment, and granted the requests.

The applicant sought production of an investigation report prepared by an external investigator retained by the University of Western Ontario regarding allegations of sexual harassment.

The University, an affected party no longer involved in the application, opposed production claiming litigation and solicitor-client privilege because the investigator was a lawyer.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that litigation privilege expired when the University ceased to be a party, and solicitor-client privilege did not apply because the investigator was retained to conduct fact-finding, not to provide legal advice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services, which was deferred pending the outcome of related provincial offences proceedings.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate the application seven months after the conclusion of the provincial proceedings, well beyond the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that he was dealing with personal issues and simply forgot—did not constitute a good faith reason to extend the time limit.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant by mail and email.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant, who is self-represented, requested an adjournment of the second day of his human rights hearing, citing disability and mobility issues supported by a medical letter.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns about the procedural fairness of proceeding by teleconference.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to file a witness list and a detailed witness statement for himself, and outlined the procedure for requesting permission to self-record the hearing.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response.

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the original Response was incomplete, the respondent was previously unrepresented, there was no identified prejudice to the applicant, and the amendment would clarify the issues for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the production of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing on the basis that its primary witness regarding the issue of delay was medically unavailable.

The applicant opposed the request, citing prejudice due to health and age.

The Tribunal refused the adjournment, noting that the witness's testimony might not be necessary to determine timeliness and that the hearing would also address whether the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add the ground of reprisal and additional remedies, following the termination of his employment.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendments were an extension of the initial application, the request was made early in the process, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

He subsequently requested to amend his application to add the ground of disability, while the respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for a summary hearing, directing that a teleconference be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed.