Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about their intentions.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled summary and preliminary hearings, citing a recently scheduled medical appointment.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the absence of medical documentation indicating an inability to proceed and the long-standing notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant could have avoided the scheduling conflict and the hearing was scheduled to conclude before the medical appointment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent follow-up email.

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

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on record of offences.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents related to the applicant's job search efforts and mitigation of damages.

The Tribunal found the documents relevant to the applicant's claim for loss of compensation, but narrowed the scope of the request regarding the applicant's personal business to earning statements only.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within seven days.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after being informed he failed a data entry test during the hiring process for a caseworker position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that key evidence regarding the test results was in the respondent's possession and could not be evaluated at the summary hearing stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex against her employer, Securitas, her supervisor, and the client company, Toyota, where she worked as a security guard.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against Toyota and its employee, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no link between their actions and the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against Securitas and the supervisor regarding a July 2013 disciplinary incident as an abuse of process, noting that the applicant had already received the benefit of a grievance settlement regarding those issues.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged unfair treatment and her sex.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, based on comments made by a police officer during an interaction.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that there were differing versions of the facts and credibility issues that could not be resolved at a summary hearing.

Assuming the applicant's version of the facts to be true, the Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and declined to dismiss it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Delivery of Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to a follow-up letter warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved through a prior union grievance settlement that included a full release.

The applicant argued she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the settlement due to trauma from a workplace assault.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish incapacity and concluded the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents or dismiss the allegations against them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual conduct of the respondents was a central issue and that a remedy could potentially be ordered against them personally.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case, noting that the matter was not appropriate for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed and disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of harassment and her subsequent attempts to obtain accommodation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate was ongoing within one year of the application being filed, the Tribunal determined the application was timely and allowed it to proceed.

The respondent requested detailed particulars regarding the applicant's allegations of discrimination during lease expense negotiations.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the pleadings were sufficient and the request resembled civil discovery.

The Tribunal found that most of the requested particulars could be answered after standard disclosure or during cross-examination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific particulars regarding the nature of its challenge to the Leasing Guidelines, the identity of comparator clinics, and the exact compensation sought.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent added conditions to her daycare license.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the applicant's related appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the application was filed first, it was unclear whether the LAT would consider the discrimination issues or offer appropriate remedies, and there was insufficient evidence of overlapping issues at this stage.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal directing them to advise of their intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and other grounds after the respondent denied his request to use space for a religiously based training program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a previous order to provide particulars and ordered him to do so immediately.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the respondent's bank statements and a list of founding members, finding them irrelevant to the application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant requested and was granted an extension of time to respond, but failed to do so.

After a further direction from the Tribunal went unanswered, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars of the applicant's allegations.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application generally identified the who, what, when, and where of each alleged incident and was not lacking in particulars.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Toronto Police Services, two Superior Court judges, and opposing counsel from previous civil proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications against the judges and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the judges on the basis of judicial immunity, as the allegations pertained to their judicial decision-making.

The application against opposing counsel was dismissed because there is no service relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to provide further submissions regarding the remaining allegations against the Toronto Police Services.