Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race.

The applicant failed to comply with her pre-hearing obligations, including filing a list of witnesses and documents, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction ordering her to serve and file medical records.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of her obligations and the consequences of failing to comply.

The application was dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The applicant filed applications alleging that the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to use best efforts to provide home care services in accordance with her preferences, specifically for a non-smoking Filipina personal support worker available on Sunday mornings.

Following the withdrawal of the applicant's long-time worker, the respondents faced difficulties finding a suitable replacement due to the applicant's extensive 'do not send' list and her refusal to consider alternative agencies.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had made best efforts and did not contravene the settlement, dismissing the applications.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant's counsel to provide a Certificate of Ancillary Appointment of an Estate Trustee, as the applicant was deceased and the estate trustee was appointed in Chile.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under Rule 74.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a foreign estate trustee must seek recognition of their powers over estate assets in Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's counsel to confirm within 14 days whether he intends to obtain the Ontario Certificate, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the one-year deadline fell on a Saturday, and the following Monday was a statutory holiday.

Because the application was received on the next business day, the Tribunal held that the application was timely.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code beyond the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the delay.

The applicant requested an in-person hearing and later written submissions, citing medical conditions, but failed to provide supporting medical evidence as directed.

On the day of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend, citing a late-arising work conflict.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's interim decision denying its Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that it fell outside the scope of the Tribunal's Reconsideration Rules because it addressed an interim decision rather than a final decision.

A case management teleconference was ordered prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and ancestry.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order to prevent the applicant from painting the apartment building due to the respondent's asthma.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the Human Rights Code may allow remedies for a respondent if an infringement is found, it does not provide jurisdiction to award an interim remedy to a respondent where no determination of an infringement has been made.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal.

The respondents failed to file a response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the WSIB reduced his noise-induced hearing loss calculation based on a policy that deducts 0.5 decibels for each year a worker's age exceeds 60.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 explicitly exempts WSIB policies requiring or authorizing age distinctions from the application of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a school custodian, alleged discrimination based on sex, creed, and race regarding workplace conflict, scheduling, religious leave, and school inspections.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal confirmed the union's intervenor status over the applicant's objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the religious leave allegation as having no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the school inspection allegations under section 45.1 of the Code because they had been dealt with in a prior grievance.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to include events outside the one-year limitation period.

The allegations regarding workplace conflict and scheduling were permitted to proceed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(c) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated the allegations from his original application and failed to provide any meaningful submissions relevant to the grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and age, claiming she was over-supervised, made to feel unwelcome, and unfairly disciplined for classroom management issues.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing for delay, no reasonable prospect of success, and because a grievance proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to a Code ground.

The Tribunal also dismissed older allegations for delay, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations and the applicant lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding a series of disciplinary incidents related to classroom management to proceed.

The Tribunal also found that the grievance process did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application under s. 45.1.

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

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events prior to the applicant's lay-off were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegation, that the respondent objected to the applicant seeking a WSIB specialist appointment, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the objection to the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination based on creed, specifically regarding a refusal of time off for Ramadan.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the allegation timely and that it would not substantially lengthen the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and assault by an employee of the organizational respondents.

She subsequently brought a request to add the alleged perpetrator as a personal respondent.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, citing delay and denying vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's conduct was central to the allegations and that adding him was necessary to ensure the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award a remedy, particularly since the organizational respondents did not accept vicarious liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to make the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

When neither party responded to the direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and place of origin after the police and Crown declined to pursue criminal charges against his former business partner.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's explanation that he was exhausting other avenues of redress was not a sufficient good faith reason to extend the time for filing.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a tenant who uses an electric wheelchair, alleged discrimination after being served with an eviction notice following an altercation in the building's elevator.

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

The adjudicator denied the applicant's requests for an adjournment, to amend the application, and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry.

The application was dismissed because the applicant could not point to any evidence, beyond her own beliefs, connecting the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she had sought out legal counsel who needed time to prepare, and that she was trying to find transportation and funds to attend.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, a dental assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, disability, and sex by her employer.

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 grounds.

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