Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had, in fact, filed a request for an extension of time on the deadline date.

Finding that the applicant did not intend to abandon the application, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, reinstated the application, and set a new deadline for the applicant to provide his documents and witness list.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

A Notice of Hearing was sent setting dates for disclosure and production of documents.

Neither party complied with the disclosure rules.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he wished to proceed and directing the parties to comply with document requirements.

The Tribunal received no correspondence from the parties.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $3,000 in general damages agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent admitted to the non-payment but cited financial hardship as the reason.

The Tribunal found that financial strain does not excuse compliance with a binding settlement agreement.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to immediately pay the $3,000 owed, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

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

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to mental health issues and duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant lacked capacity to understand the agreement or that he signed under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that proceeding with it would be an abuse of process.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment and reprisal sought production of documents from a related police disciplinary hearing.

The respondents argued the documents were inadmissible under the statutory privilege in s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal held that a human rights proceeding is a 'civil proceeding' within the meaning of s. 83(8), departing from previous Tribunal decisions.

Consequently, the requested disciplinary documents were subject to an absolute statutory bar and were inadmissible, with the exception of the initial complaint made by the Chief of Police.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witness lists under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

After an earlier adjournment due to the applicant's non-attendance, the Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

When the applicant again failed to provide the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

She claimed she had been hospitalized for two weeks and was unable to attend to her affairs.

The Tribunal directed her to provide supporting medical documentation and specify the dates of her hospitalization, but she failed to do so.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that a two-week hospitalization did not explain her failure to communicate with the Tribunal for three months.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and sex against Unifor and Tim Carrie.

The allegations arose from their attendance at Unifor's Family Education Program, where they were asked to leave after failing to participate in mandatory sessions due to the applicant's high-risk pregnancy and the needs of their 18-month-old daughter.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, finding that based on the applicants' clarified factual allegations regarding the need for accommodation, the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her human rights hearing due to health concerns but failed to file the required Form 10 or provide medical documentation as directed by the Tribunal.

After the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, it reconsidered its decision upon discovering a late fax from the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide detailed medical submissions by a specific date.

The applicant failed to communicate further or comply with the order.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and various individuals, claiming a police cover-up of child abuse dating back to 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the claims against the Court were barred by judicial immunity, the claims against the individuals lacked specific allegations of discrimination, and the claims against the Police Services Board were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondent, the President and CEO of Legal Aid Ontario, from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the personal respondent was the directing mind of the organization.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent, as the organizational respondent conceded vicarious liability and the applicant sought no remedy that only the personal respondent could provide.

The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.

The respondent requested a two-month adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing health issues and travel plans.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to provide medical documentation or establish exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, especially given the prior notice of the hearing date.

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

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

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

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the hearing.

The applicant argued he missed the hearing due to new employment training.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant's reasons for missing the hearing were known to him when he previously requested an adjournment, and he failed to establish compelling and extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he was not rehired at a newly constructed school.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a union grievance that resulted in a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS).

The Tribunal found that the MOS constituted a proceeding that dealt with the same facts and subject matter, and that the applicant received financial compensation specifically for the age discrimination allegations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions regarding a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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 the Human Rights Code.

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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 subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment after her employment was terminated.

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

The applicant admitted she only had a suspicion that age was a factor, based on the fact that her co-workers were younger and her supervisor spoke to them but not to her.

The Tribunal concluded that this was insufficient evidence to establish discrimination and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.