Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant, a lacrosse coach, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and creed after being suspended by the Ontario Lacrosse Association for allowing an unregistered player to try out.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking his suspension or the alleged procedural unfairness to his race, ancestry, or creed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an expedited hearing and punitive action against the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no justification for an expedited hearing and no evidence of inappropriate conduct by the respondent.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's own inappropriate allegations and reminded him of the obligation to act courteously.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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 by the required deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent college discriminated against him because of disability and reprised against him, specifically failing to accommodate his disability in accordance with his student accommodation plan.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to enforce the accommodation plan.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the interim remedy, as the accommodation plan was subject to interpretation and required evidence to be heard on the merits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a physician.

The applicant argued that the respondent's termination of medical services upon receiving a complaint letter constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely reiterating arguments already addressed in the original hearing, where it was determined the respondent lacked the intention to retaliate and had terminated the relationship due to a breakdown in trust.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled teleconference summary hearing.

After waiting the standard 30 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the personal respondent during her six-month employment as an office administrator, and that her employment was terminated in reprisal when she threatened to complain about his behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to prove her allegations of sexual harassment on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal also found that the termination of employment was related to alleged performance issues and not in reprisal for raising Code-protected rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability following her termination.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a parallel civil court action regarding a motorcycle accident in the respondent's parking lot.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral, finding that the legal issues were distinct and there was no significant risk of inconsistent decisions, as the civil proceeding did not raise issues of discrimination or termination.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of parallel grievance arbitration proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue points already considered and that, in any event, an interim decision on deferral is not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that he had recently retained a representative who was unavailable due to a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had notice of the hearing for over five months and had failed to comply with previous procedural directions.

The Tribunal held that retaining a representative at a late date does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring compliance by a specific date and warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not contact the Tribunal or provide the required materials.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of his WSIB appeal.

He argued that the WSIB process had become unduly delayed because he was required to see specialists.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the WSIB process had been delayed beyond its normal expectations or requirements.

The respondent organization filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove two individual respondents and be added as the sole respondent in an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the organizational respondent but deferred the request to remove the individual respondents, as it was unclear from the respondents' pleadings who made the decision to dismiss the applicant.

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

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance based on the same facts.

The respondent school board agreed with the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that deferral avoids duplicative proceedings.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The applicant requested reactivation of the application after the union voted not to refer the grievance to arbitration.

The respondent did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application, noting that since the grievance would not proceed to arbitration, there was no longer a risk of duplicative proceedings or contradictory findings.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in employment based on disability filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the production of certain documents agreed to by the respondent, but denied the production of standard workload formulas for other professors, documents relating to speculative changes in employment status, and security records falling under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, over which the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking detailed witness statements and the production of documents referenced in the applicant's witness list.

The respondent also opposed the applicant's request to have her treating physicians testify by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements and produce the referenced documents.

The Tribunal permitted one physician to testify by telephone but required the other to testify in person due to potential credibility issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by making child support deductions from the settlement monies and remitting them to the Family Responsibility Office.

The Tribunal found that the settlement monies were characterized as general damages, not income or severance, and therefore the respondent was not required to make deductions under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the $2,500 that was erroneously deducted, plus interest.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by assisting his employer in requesting a medical note before he could attend a convention, and by creating barriers to a grievance settlement.

The respondent union requested a summary dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the duty of fair representation.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the union did not formulate a discriminatory rule but merely assisted in communicating the employer's demands, which does not amount to differential treatment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.