Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

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 alleged that the Toronto Police Services Board discriminated against her based on her mental health disability during a landlord and tenant dispute.

She claimed that because the police assessed her as an Emotionally Disturbed Person (EDP), they gave her calls lower priority, failed to investigate her complaints, and treated her adversely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive delayed service compared to her landlord, that she herself prevented the investigation of her complaint by refusing to cooperate, and that the police acted to de-escalate the situation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal allegation, finding that a police reference to a former communication protocol was due to the high volume of her complaints, not retaliation for filing a human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, as well as concurrent grievances with her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

Finding that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the applicant could seek to reactivate it within 60 days of the grievance proceedings concluding if the substance was not appropriately dealt with.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination regarding his discharge from IBI therapy provided by Kinark.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, finding no reasonable prospect of success for holding the funder vicariously liable.

The Tribunal ruled that historical treatment allegations were untimely for remedial purposes but could be introduced as context.

The Tribunal also held that the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) process, which upheld the clinical discharge decision, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, as it was a clinical review rather than a legal one.

The applicant was directed to clarify the specific allegations against the IRM reviewer and coordinator.

The applicants, who self-identify as Metis and as persons with disabilities, alleged discrimination regarding their treatment while incarcerated at the Niagara Detention Centre.

They alleged denial of prescribed medications, placement in segregation after being assaulted, and denial of access to cultural and creed-based traditions, including sacred medicines and appropriate meals.

The respondent denied the allegations, asserting the complaints related to non-Code factors like under-staffing and over-crowding, and disputed the factual claims.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications at the summary hearing stage, finding that the factual disagreements required evidence to resolve, and directed the applications to continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant, an adult with a severe intellectual disability, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the residential services provided by the respondent agency and the oversight by the respondent Ministry.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were essentially complaints about the quality of care and disagreements over the nature of support, which do not constitute Code-related discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success against the Ministry for failing to intervene, as there is no Code-related obligation for the Ministry to oversee the agency's accommodation.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant failed to join the teleconference or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her manager, which she claimed led to her resignation.

She concurrently filed a grievance with her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay and her lack of confidence in the grievance process, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid duplication of proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

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

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the application to the respondent, but it was returned as moved/unknown.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide more information regarding the respondent's address and warned that failure to do so could result in the file being closed.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's related WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the WSIB appeal regarding the applicant's chronic pain disability was directly relevant to the human rights claim.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant argued that there was a failure to accommodate her, but provided no meaningful submissions addressing the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal found no basis to exercise its discretion to reconsider the earlier decision and dismissed the request.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her disability-related restrictions and refused to provide modified work following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in ESA and WSIB proceedings, or alternatively deferred pending a WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal refused both requests, finding that neither the ESA nor WSIB proceedings addressed the core issue of accommodation under the Code, and that there was minimal risk of inconsistent results to justify deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, and disability, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to transfer requests, cleaning duties, parking, and vandalism, finding no evidence linking the events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding racially offensive and disability-related notes posted on the applicant's door and a bulletin board to proceed, finding that the issue of whether they created a poisoned environment required a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a new incident of alleged discrimination or reprisal that occurred after the application was filed.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal considered the nature, reasons, timing, and prejudice of the proposed amendment, and granted the request to amend the application.

The applicant sought to re-activate two human rights applications after her union withdrew related grievances.

The respondent school board requested the applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in the grievance process.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that because the grievances were withdrawn without a hearing on the merits, the substance was not appropriately dealt with.

The Tribunal granted the requests to re-activate and consolidate the applications, but denied the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent, as the allegations lacked particulars of a Code violation and were out of time.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of time to file disclosure documents, citing travel and disability-related difficulties.

The respondent opposed the adjournment but agreed to a brief extension, and requested an order preventing the applicant from publishing disclosed documents on social media.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances, but granted an extension of time for disclosure.

The Tribunal declined to issue a specific order regarding social media publication in the absence of an actual breach, but cautioned the applicant that publishing documents would violate Rule 3.3 and could result in the dismissal of her application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent in delaying the issuance of his engineering licence.

The events in question occurred prior to 2013, but the application was not filed until October 2016.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent in 2013, which was dismissed on summary judgment.

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

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that he delayed filing because he was waiting for evidence from the civil proceeding or because he believed he could not pursue both proceedings simultaneously.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.

Subsequently, the applicant commenced a civil proceeding against the respondent seeking damages for the same alleged violations of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the civil claim were indistinguishable from the Application.

Applying section 34(11) of the Code, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed, as the civil action was ongoing.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his involuntary admission and detention at a mental health centre in 2010.

The application was filed more than six years after the alleged incidents.

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

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or allege any fresh steps of discrimination.

The Tribunal found the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction as it failed to identify specific acts of discrimination, and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

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

Consequently, the Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.