Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights application, arguing that her right to a fair trial was violated when the respondent breached an exclusion order during the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already addressed in the original decision, where the adjudicator had determined the breach was inadvertent and caused no harm.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights applications against the respondent condominium corporation to add an allegation of reprisal and to request additional remedies.

The respondents objected to the reprisal amendment but had already provided a response and relevant documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting that the amendment would not appreciably lengthen the hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent requested an order to defer the application pending an appeal and proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal issued two Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to clarify the nature of her appeal and respond to jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to respond to both directions within the specified timelines.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour.

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

The Tribunal concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the application to the respondent at the provided address and directed the applicant to provide a current address.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After several years, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievances.

When the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after his employment was terminated by the respondent.

The respondent named the staffing agency that placed the applicant as an affected person.

The staffing agency filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal applied the factors for intervention and granted the request, finding the agency had a significant interest and could provide assistance regarding the facts and context of the applicant's employment.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already dismissed the applicant's wrongful dismissal and reprisal claims.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO decision did not engage in any analysis of the discrimination issues alleged in the application, and therefore did not appropriately deal with the substance of the matter under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a contravention of settlement application alleging the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement by failing to complete human rights training for all managers by the agreed-upon date.

The respondents argued they only agreed to use best efforts to complete the training within six months.

The Tribunal found that one respondent completed the training on time, while the other completed it five and a half weeks late due to scheduling difficulties with a large number of managers.

The Tribunal held that the respondents used best efforts and that any minor delay was a de minimus breach.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after his employment was terminated following a request for a shift change to see his children.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to add details regarding the reasons for denying the shift change and terminating the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments would assist rather than prejudice the applicant, and extended the deadline for both parties to file their witness statements and documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal against his employer, the WSIB, his union (ATU), and a union representative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative, as the narrative failed to connect their actions to any prohibited grounds under the Code.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over these respondents, as the allegations against the WSIB did not engage the Code, and the union's alleged failure to pursue a grievance was not tied to discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed against the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent.

Following the filings, the Superior Court issued an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act staying all proceedings against the respondent.

The Tribunal deferred the applications and cancelled scheduled mediations, holding that it is appropriate to give effect to the CCAA stay order.

The applicants filed applications alleging a contravention of settlement by the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response despite notices and directions from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applications will proceed without further notice to the respondent, and a teleconference was scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee on the basis of place of origin, disability, and family status during a guardianship application process.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment, such as delays and requests for specialized identification documents, to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add two security companies as potential parties to the human rights application.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by security guards employed by these companies while at the respondent's store.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add them as respondents, noting that the applicant determines who to name as a respondent and there is no third-party claim process under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the companies could file a Request to Intervene if they wished to participate.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing, which was scheduled to proceed by teleconference.

The applicant was provided with notice but failed to join the teleconference or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability prior to his termination.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release agreeing not to commence any Code complaints.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal request, warning that failure to do so could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of the claimant, an ODSP recipient, alleging that the respondent's policies regarding Extended Health Benefits and Transitional Health Benefits are discriminatory.

The claimant is currently financially eligible for ODSP but anticipates losing eligibility in the future when she begins receiving a survivor's pension.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was premature.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims based on anticipated future infringements of the Human Rights Code, as section 34(1) only addresses incidents of discrimination that have already occurred.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her employer and union.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the issues were already the subject of ongoing grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

Despite the applicant's concerns about the union's representation, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, creed, sex, family status, and marital status.

Concurrently, she filed requests to expedite the proceedings and for an interim remedy to secure the rental property or prevent its rental or sale.

The Tribunal denied both requests.

The applicant failed to file the required statutory declarations supporting her requests.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the request to expedite was moot as the applicant had secured alternate housing, and she failed to meet the significant onus required for an interim remedy.