Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination based on race, place of origin, and citizenship by his co-tenants and the building janitor.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a concurrent application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the LTB proceeding.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing held by telephone conference call.

The respondents attended.

As the Notice of Hearing warned that failure to attend could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application on that basis.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The parties attended mediation and reached a settlement in principle, but failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement (Form 25) by the required deadline.

After the Tribunal followed up and received no response from either party, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of his AODA disability customer service module and certain pay stubs.

The respondent produced the pay stubs but indicated it did not have the AODA document.

The Tribunal found the AODA document to be arguably relevant and ordered the respondent to produce it if it is in its possession or control.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services, specifically regarding the denial and delayed processing of a Housing Stabilization Fund request.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own belief to connect the alleged unfair treatment to his disability.

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

The applicant, a former school bus driver, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin, claiming he was terminated after a student's mother made racist comments and complained to the transportation consortium.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing the termination was due to serious breaches of service standards and that they were unaware of the alleged racist comments.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application entirely, finding that the allegations of discrimination required a full hearing to determine if the respondents were aware of the comments and if racial stereotyping was a factor in the dismissal.

The application will proceed on discrete issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and place of origin.

The applicant, who was on a centralized waitlist for rent-geared-to-income housing, claimed that the respondent failed to process his medical note requesting a move to a single-person unit due to chronic depression and domestic abuse.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's handling of his application to his disability or place of origin.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing after her adjournment request was denied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a coworker, sexually harassed her and harassed her on the basis of disability by smoking near her in the workplace.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's testimony and her prior statements to police, as well as the improbable breadth of her allegations against numerous individuals.

Finding the applicant's evidence unreliable, the Tribunal concluded she failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of the Human Rights Code on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to disclose documents, provide a witness list, and submit witness statements by specified deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its human rights application as untimely.

The original application alleged that the deceased employee committed suicide due to workplace harassment and failure to accommodate her mental illness.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely re-argued its case and failed to present new determinative evidence or establish that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also noted its concern that the applicant's counsel had recorded the original teleconference hearing and submitted a transcript without the Tribunal's permission.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed if she did not reply.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent allegedly forced him to release an IT contractor from a restrictive covenant.

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

The personal respondents were removed on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own suspicions to link the respondent's actions to his age.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned in accordance with its Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.

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

Despite multiple Case Assessment Directions, the applicant failed to provide a Reply to the respondent's Response, failed to disclose documents, and failed to provide witness lists or statements as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant also ceased communicating with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant alleged racial discrimination when seeking a replacement license plate sticker at a Service Ontario location, claiming he was required to provide documentation not asked of white clients.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the respondent's witnesses, which established that the required documentation was standard and no similar transactions occurred that day.

The Tribunal found the allegations completely unfounded.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applicant engaged in an egregious abuse of process by sending violent, misogynistic emails to the respondent's representative.

The application was dismissed on its merits and as an abuse of process, and the applicant's request for the adjudicator's recusal was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the interim decision denying the adjournment.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour, more than one year after his termination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to an ongoing union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the conclusion of another legal process does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, especially since the grievance concluded well within the one-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.