Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to disclose documents and witness statements.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with these deadlines and did not communicate with the Tribunal after a final warning.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application against the Toronto Police Service.

She sought to introduce an investigation report and argued that her paralegal provided poor representation.

The Tribunal found the investigation report inadmissible under section 83(8) of the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with her legal representation did not constitute new, determinative facts that could not have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent related to his gambling addiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add and remove parties, and a request for anonymization.

The Tribunal removed the Ontario Charitable Gaming Association as a respondent on consent, and declined to add the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation as a respondent, finding it was not a proper party.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization for the interim decision, subject to future review, and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing medical unfitness caused by the respondent's late disclosure of a Supplemental Book of Documents.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on a provisional basis due to the applicant's claim of medical unfitness, but ordered the applicant to provide a detailed doctor's note within 21 days to substantiate the claim, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, providing a medical note indicating upcoming surgeries and a consultation with a pain specialist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application due to the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the medical information raised a serious issue regarding the applicant's ability to proceed, but declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide updated medical information by a specified date indicating his availability for a hearing.

In a bifurcated human rights proceeding where liability for discrimination was previously established, the applicant sought to amend the personal and public interest remedies claimed.

The respondent opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted new allegations and were out of time.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments related to the impact of the established discrimination and did not unduly prejudice the respondent.

A request by a community organization to intervene on the issue of public interest remedies was refused, as the Tribunal found the organization's submissions could be adequately addressed through the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

He also requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed at the hearing and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

As the application had already been dismissed, there was no basis to order an inquiry.

Both requests were dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an interim remedy to resume her studies, an adjournment of the upcoming hearing, and an extension of time to file disclosure documents.

The Tribunal deferred the interim remedy request to the outset of the hearing, denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and granted a short extension of time for the applicant and one respondent to complete their disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request for an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal provided further directions regarding the submission of medical documentation and options for the applicant to participate in the hearing by videoconference or teleconference.

The corporate respondent and a personal respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that evidence was required to resolve factual disputes and clarify the impact of an arbitrator's findings.

The Tribunal also granted the York Regional Police Association's request to intervene, noting its typical practice of allowing union intervention in applications arising from unionized workplaces.

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

Several respondents failed to file a Response as directed in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against one individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a complete name and address.

The remaining non-responding respondents were directed to file a Response within 7 days or face potential orders without their participation.

Mediation was scheduled for the participating parties.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was provided to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination but failed to attend the scheduled preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal had previously communicated with the applicant regarding the hearing and advised her to seek legal representation.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled start time, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Citing the duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and noting the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by disclosing the financial terms to its staff.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement explicitly applied only to the applicant and imposed no such obligation on the respondent.

As there was no ambiguity in the contract, extrinsic evidence regarding mediation negotiations was inadmissible.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's right to pursue a separate reprisal claim.

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

The respondent requested that allegations prior to June 2014 be dismissed as untimely and sought a summary hearing.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add two allegations of reprisal relating to a forced medical leave and subsequent termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations prior to June 2014, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's amendments to add the reprisal allegations, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Ontario Power Generation, specifically at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that employment matters concerning nuclear facilities are federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court of Canada and previous Tribunal jurisprudence establishing that nuclear power sector employees fall under federal jurisdiction for human rights matters.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings, seeking an order compelling the respondents to produce their arguably relevant documents and an order anonymizing her name in all decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the documents by a specified deadline, failing which they may be barred from calling witnesses or presenting evidence.

The Tribunal also granted the anonymization request, finding that the applicant's allegations of workplace sexual assault and harassment, combined with her history of sexual abuse and resulting mental health issues, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the protection of her identity.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

After the applicant requested a rescheduling, the Tribunal directed the applicant to arrange new dates.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal regarding the new dates.

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

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal regarding legal fees charged by the condominium corporation to the new owners of her former unit.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it premature because the applicant was not currently being charged the fees and was not adversely affected by them at this time.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process concluded on April 1, 2016, when the union withdrew the grievance, making the applicant's July 20, 2016 request to reactivate untimely under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit, finding no good faith reason for the delay, and dismissed the application.