Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant, a resident of a mobile home park who has a physical disability, alleged discrimination with respect to accommodation when the respondents refused to allow a gas line installation to his unit and failed to clear the snow windrow at his driveway.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to point to evidence showing that the respondents' actions imposed an additional burden or disadvantage on him due to his disability, as he was responsible for clearing his own driveway and had alternative heating options available.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability (medical marijuana use) against his landlord and its agents, primarily related to eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations at the outset of the hearing, finding that the respondents' actions and statements in the legal proceedings were protected by absolute privilege.

Following this ruling and an unsuccessful mediation attempt, the applicant left the hearing room and did not return.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the applications and dismissed them in their entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process because he had signed a full and final release upon his employment termination.

The applicant argued that the preliminary hearing process was unfair and that the Tribunal's findings regarding fraudulent misrepresentation were flawed.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The applicant failed to provide a copy of the WSIAT decision as required by the Tribunal's rules and indicated he would not do so until consulting with the Ombudsman.

The Tribunal directed that it would not process the request to reactivate the application until the applicant provided a copy of the WSIAT decision.

The applicants filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Stock Transportation as a respondent, alleging discrimination when the bus driver refused to assist in attaching a safety harness.

The respondent school board filed a request to remove the Toronto Student Transportation Group as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Stock Transportation, finding the allegations could support a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the transportation group, finding it was a separate entity that coordinates bussing and may be subject to a specific remedial order if the application is successful.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on citizenship, marital status, and age, claiming that workplace break scheduling favoured a 'Facebook and Smoker elite' group.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on several procedural issues raised during a conference call.

The Tribunal excluded one of the applicant's proposed witnesses as the evidence amounted to inadmissible similar fact evidence, but permitted another witness to testify regarding her observations.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant portions of her medical and long-term disability files, as well as tax documents related to employment income.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the University of Windsor to produce the applicant's employment records to the parties.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated because she could no longer work overtime hours following a workplace wrist injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish she had a continuing disability known to the employer, or that her refusal to work overtime was a factor in her termination.

The employer provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, including significant invoicing errors and a negative attitude.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the decision should be reconsidered under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely repeated the same arguments made in her original application and failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to institute a policy for investigating condominium rule violations.

Prior to the hearing, both parties requested to amend their pleadings to allege breaches of confidentiality clauses.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests to amend, finding they were filed late, raised entirely new issues, and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal also deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the Application for mootness to the hearing, and limited the scope of evidence to the specific contravention alleged in the original Application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Contravention of Settlement Application.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, alleging bias and disagreeing with procedural and evidentiary findings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, and reprisal after being asked to leave the respondent's store.

The respondent's employees accused the applicant of harassing another customer.

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 subjective belief to link the respondent's actions to his race or colour, and made no allegations amounting to reprisal.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and to file a Reply.

The applicant failed to comply with the directives within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law but provided no submissions to support this claim, instead restating his original evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and denied the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the WSIB and its employees based on allegedly insulting comments made during her work transition assessments.

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

The Tribunal found that, given the context of the WSIB employees' roles in assessing work transition and the plain meaning of the words used, there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the comments were objectively insulting or discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination, the applicant sought to add a former representative of the respondents as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings, the applicant's previous confirmation that he did not wish to add her, and the absence of any issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy an alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal also provided directions for the continuation of the hearing, including addressing issues of absolute privilege and sections 45.1 and 34(11) of the Code.

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

The Tribunal issued notices to schedule hearing dates, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a warning that the application could be dismissed without further notice.

As the applicant could not be contacted and failed to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin, disability, and marital status.

The respondent requested dismissal of several allegations due to delay and argued that others had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations, as there was no nexus between them, and dismissed them for delay because the applicant's desire to resolve matters informally did not constitute a good faith explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations against one acting sergeant for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant indicated he had witnesses who could testify to discriminatory comments.

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

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 despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a Law Society of Upper Canada investigation.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times to inquire about the status of the investigation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

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