Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend her human rights application to include a subsequent event and to add a personal respondent.

The respondent consented to the addition of the subsequent event but opposed adding the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendment to add the subsequent event on consent.

Applying the three-part test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal denied the request to add the personal respondent, finding it unnecessary because the organizational respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and the individual's conduct was not central to the allegations as a whole.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the public interest remedy sought in his human rights application alleging racial profiling.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the systemic remedy sought was inappropriate based on the allegations and would add unnecessary length and complexity.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that requests to amend remedies are regularly granted up to the date of the hearing, and the respondent could make submissions on the appropriateness of the remedies at the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Interim Decision regarding document production and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Interim Decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1, but exercised its discretion under Rule 26.9 to order a third party to produce a call log.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its decision denying production of PC-16 forms.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request due to the exceptional circumstances of a respondent's recent major surgery and a witness's religious observance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the WSIB's handling of his labour market re-entry plan and loss of earnings benefits.

The applicant had previously appealed the WSIB's decisions to the WSIAT, which found in his favour and awarded him benefits reflecting a more suitable occupation.

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

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, despite the WSIAT lacking jurisdiction to award damages for injury to dignity.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents brought requests to dismiss the human rights application and to remove an individual respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code prohibits final disposal of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, applying the Persaud factors and finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her, as the organizational respondent would be vicariously liable and no specific allegations were made against her.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer consideration of her human rights application on the basis that she intended to file a civil claim in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral because the applicant had not yet commenced her civil claim.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could renew her request if and when she commenced the civil claim, and reminded her of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code regarding concurrent proceedings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging mistreatment during a hospital admission.

The applicant sought reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a), claiming new facts regarding a psychiatrist's request for his personal items.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the facts were new, could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, or were potentially determinative of the case.

The applicant, a volunteer running a ping-pong program at a community centre, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any Code-protected ground.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing accommodation.

The organizational respondent requested an extension of time to file its Response due to the sudden death of its principal and the existence of a concurrent proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding no substantial prejudice to any party, and directed the respondents to file their Responses by a specified date.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A Notice of Hearing was issued and delivered to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before proceeding.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

Four applicants filed human rights applications against the respondent.

Shortly before the hearing, one applicant advised she intended to withdraw her application due to work-related reasons but failed to file the required withdrawal form.

She did not attend the first two days of the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed her application as abandoned.

The applicant brought a motion for production of 21 categories of documents and requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal granted the production request in part, ordering only the disclosure of information regarding a taxi driver and video recordings relevant to the narrow remaining issues of accommodation during a February 2014 interview.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation or establish exceptional circumstances to justify rescheduling the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in his termination.

He also filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour for Employment Standards Act (ESA) violations.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the ESA proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceeding addressed ESA breaches, not the human rights issues raised in the application.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties had previously settled an application for $4,000, but the respondents' installment cheques were returned for non-sufficient funds.

The respondents did not respond to the Application or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondents jointly and severally liable for the contravention and ordered them to pay the outstanding $1,000, bank charges, interest, and an additional $1,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by the breach.

The respondent requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application had been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA proceeding did not address the failure to accommodate allegations.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal of the ESA decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, noting sufficient factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss parts of the human rights application due to delay and to remove the personal respondent.

The applicant alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and failure to accommodate his disability over several years.

The Tribunal held that determining whether the incidents constituted a series under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code required hearing evidence, and deferred the delay issue to the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature prior to the disclosure of documents and witness statements.

The respondents' requests were denied.

The respondents requested the mid-hearing dismissal of several of the applicant's allegations of improper investigation and reprisal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to the Professional Standards Unit's investigation because assessing them would require admitting evidence protected by statutory privilege and confidentiality under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding the handling of the applicant's WSIB file and a denied promotion that occurred before she filed her human rights complaint.

Other allegations were permitted to proceed as they required a full evidentiary record.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) warning that failure to respond could lead to the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested and received an extension of time to respond, but failed to file a response by the extended deadline.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to revise accessibility policies and train staff regarding Deaf, Deafened, and Hard of Hearing patients.

The Tribunal found the Application was filed outside the six-month limitation period under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also noted that, in any event, the respondent had complied with the settlement terms by reviewing its policies and implementing mandatory staff training.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

After the grievance concluded, the Tribunal directed the applicant to follow the process for reactivating a deferred application and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.