Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

In an interim decision following a case management meeting, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to produce certain emails and texts concerning the applicant up to the date of the Application.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents created after the Application date, noting the applicant must first seek permission to amend her Application to add allegations of continuing reprisals.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act precludes the production of documents from a related disciplinary proceeding.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by a client of the respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal found that the application should not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as there were factual and legal disputes requiring a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of the client's log books, investigation notes, employment contracts, and workplace policies, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, subject to redactions for privacy.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the property manager as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The respondents did not file a response.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth and the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found it appropriate to add the proposed respondent, as the application alleged he issued a trespass notice against the applicant, which was a central issue in the proceedings.

The request was granted.

The parties each filed applications alleging the other breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to immediately examine partnering with the Township for parking by-law enforcement.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached confidentiality by discussing the settlement with the Mayor and a Township employee.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding the respondent took appropriate steps to implement the agreement and the applicant did not disclose confidential information or did so with the respondent's waiver.

At the start of the scheduled hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment due to their counsel's alleged heart condition.

Another lawyer from the firm appeared and produced a vague medical note.

Despite serious concerns about the note and the prejudice to the applicant, whose doctor had cancelled appointments to testify, the Tribunal reluctantly granted the adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered a case management call to expeditiously reschedule the hearing and directed that the file be reassigned if counsel remained unavailable.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled for May 19, 2016.

The applicant requested an extension two days prior, which was denied, and the applicant was informed the issue could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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, as it related to the conduct of a lawyer and an adjudicator in another proceeding.

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 Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was incomplete and potentially outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or provide the requested information within the specified timeframes.

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

The applicants, who were either spouses of ODSP recipients or former recipients who became spouses of non-recipients, alleged that the ODSP income support rules discriminated against them on the basis of marital status, family status, sex, sexual orientation, and association with a person with a disability.

They argued that including spousal income to determine ODSP eligibility merged their legal personalities and deprived them of procedural safeguards available under the Family Law Act.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the ODSPA and FLA serve different purposes, and that considering spousal support obligations to determine eligibility for a social assistance program of last resort is not discriminatory.

The applicant filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking further production of documents and permission to call two medical witnesses, with one testifying by telephone.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to answer specific questions regarding the existence of the requested documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for Dr. Ouchterlony to testify by telephone, finding her evidence regarding the applicant's capacity to attend university too important and complex for teleconference.

The Tribunal also denied the request to call Dr. Warriner, as his 2015 neuropsychological report was not before the respondent when it made its 2013 admissions decision and was therefore irrelevant.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an interim order for the production of various documents from the respondent City of Ottawa and third-party police records.

The Tribunal ordered the third-party Ottawa Police Service to produce witness statements and notes related to the specific incident, as they were arguably relevant and the police consented.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymized copies of all Trespass to Property Notices issued by the respondent over the past 3 to 5 years, finding the request overly broad, speculative, and a fishing expedition.

The scheduled hearing dates were converted to mediation/adjudication due to outstanding disclosure issues.

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

At the hearing, the respondent indicated that the named respondent, Mary-Am Group, was not a registered corporate entity.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove Mary-Am Group and add three interconnected corporations as respondents.

Applying the common employer doctrine, the Tribunal found sufficient interconnectedness among the proposed respondents to support a potential finding of liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the non-legal entity and adding the three corporations as respondents.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending an Employment Standards proceeding.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved in the applicant's favour by the Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Employment Standards process constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university for failing to nominate him for a Canada Research Chair.

Prior to the application, the applicant filed a consolidated grievance addressing the same allegations.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Finding that the grievance dealt with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, 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 respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts and, despite amending the Statement of Claim to remove references to the Code, subsequently filed a Response to Demand for Particulars confirming he was pursuing damages for Code breaches.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) applied and it had no discretion to allow the application to proceed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision (2016 HRTO 566) that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the reconsideration request did not address any of the reasons for the original dismissal, but instead included irrelevant letters involving a third party.

Finding no basis to reconsider the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the request.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events did not appear to be connected to Ontario.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple directions and notices from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the respondents refused or chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to determine next steps.

The respondents requested permission to use a court reporter to record the upcoming hearing and sought a waiver of the requirement to provide transcripts to the other parties and the Tribunal due to cost.

The Tribunal allowed the use of a court reporter but denied the waiver, ordering the respondents to provide transcripts at their own expense prior to final argument to ensure all parties have access to the most accurate record.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents' lack of objection to one expert witness and deferred a decision on their objection to another expert witness until the hearing.