Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment.

The respondent hospital requested dismissal of allegations from 2015 due to delay, while the applicant requested to add the alleged harasser as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal found the 2015 incidents formed a series with later allegations and dismissed the hospital's request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the Code's vicarious liability provisions do not apply to harassment, making her inclusion necessary for a complete remedy.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled hearing, stating she was not physically or mentally capable of proceeding, but provided no medical documentation to support her request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, and directed the parties to comply with disclosure deadlines or face potential consequences, including dismissal of the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on sex (pregnancy) after being laid off.

Prior to this, she had filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, raising essentially the same allegations, which an Employment Standards Officer investigated and dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the Ministry of Labour proceeding and dismissed the application to prevent re-litigation.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues had already been appropriately dealt with at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to overlapping legal and factual issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the applicant's claims regarding accommodation of her disability and her request to use a scooter in the rental unit were not addressed by the LTB.

The applications were directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent college regarding a 2014 leave of absence, inappropriate comments by professors, and a group assignment where students refused to work with him.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2014 leave of absence allegations as untimely, finding the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the professors' comments and the group assignment to proceed, finding sufficient notice was provided and the respondent failed to establish they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of ethnic origin, citizenship, and marital status after her rental application was denied and she was removed from her ex-spouse's rental unit by police.

The Tribunal found that the respondent denied the rental application for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including unstable employment, poor credit, and lack of rental history.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's actions in changing the locks and having the applicant removed were driven by the need to secure vacant possession for new tenants, not by discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought dismissal of the application in its Response.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a Reply by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race or colour at school.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and failed to address certain allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not met the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was granted an extension to respond to the NOID but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

An employee of the respondent, whose conduct was the subject of the allegations, filed a Request to Intervene to defend her reputation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the employee's interests would be adequately addressed through her anticipated testimony as a witness for the respondent, and she would not provide assistance to the Tribunal that could not otherwise be provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination arising from an alleged assault at a school.

The application named a Crown Attorney as a respondent, alleging he improperly advised police against laying charges.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the Crown Attorney on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the Crown's review of the police investigation and advice regarding charges falls squarely within the core elements of prosecutorial discretion and is immune from review under the Human Rights Code.

The application against the Crown Attorney was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction to confirm his intentions regarding the application, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts on the ground of disability, claiming her employment contract's 60-day notice requirement was discriminatory.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already dealt with the substance of the application by dismissing the applicant's ESA claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO decision did not address the substantive human rights claims, as it merely concluded there was no employer-employee relationship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, including disciplinary actions for absenteeism dating back to 2008.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary allegations ending in May 2013 were not part of a series of incidents with later allegations from 2015.

The applicant's explanation that he delayed filing due to fear of reprisal was not accepted as a good faith explanation for the delay.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for failing to identify specific acts of discrimination and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of her employment.

The applicant argued she signed the release uninformed and under duress.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and the test for economic duress, finding that the applicant received sufficient consideration and was not subjected to coercion of her will.

The Tribunal upheld the release and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a person with a cognitive disability, filed an application alleging that his union discriminated against him by refusing to allow his representative to discuss his specific employment concerns at a general union meeting.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 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 union's refusal to discuss his individual matters at a general meeting to his disability.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider previous or pending decisions involving the applicant.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the alleged incident and lacked facts demonstrating good faith for the delay.

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

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and ethnic origin, claiming he was denied a promotion in 1991 and did not receive appropriate pay increases until his retirement in 2002.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 15 years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he only recently received an investigation report from another employee's complaint and had previously attempted mediation at the Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application as out of time.