Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on her record of offences, claiming the Ministry of Transportation improperly imposed conditions on her driver's license due to a prior criminal conviction in Quebec.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that 'record of offences' is not a prohibited ground of discrimination with respect to services under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of having a 'record of offences' because she had not received a pardon for her criminal conviction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration involving the same parties and issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent factual findings.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

The respondent did not object, and the applicant made no submissions.

Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, noting the factual overlap and lack of prejudice.

A separate request by the respondent to dismiss one of the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code was deferred to the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration and WSIB proceedings.

The respondent supported deferral, while the self-represented applicant opposed it due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues raised across the proceedings and deferred the application to avoid the potential for differing conclusions on the same facts, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, challenging a decision made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of other statutory bodies due to adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it cannot re-evaluate the substantive or procedural correctness of a decision made under another statutory scheme.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's Request for Order During Proceeding and to provide complete particulars of his allegations.

The applicant was warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's arguments were essentially reiterations of positions articulated during the hearing and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding concerning a three-day suspension.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the Tribunal could provide swifter action and remedies not available at arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the central issue would be addressed at the upcoming grievance arbitration and that concurrent proceedings could lead to conflicting factual conclusions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

An arbitrator had issued a decision on the grievance, canvassing all issues raised in the application.

The respondents argued the Tribunal had no basis to proceed given the arbitrator's decision, but did not oppose reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a former member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability by other members and the co-op's failure to address it.

The respondent co-op requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with during eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the LTB only addressed the eviction and not the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and constructive dismissal.

He subsequently commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice relying on the same facts and seeking damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant raised the same facts and issues in his civil action and sought remedies for them, triggering s. 34(11).

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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 specified deadline.

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

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own motion a previous decision that dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Tribunal discovered that the parties had in fact filed a completed Form 25 (Settlement), which was not placed on the file due to an administrative error.

The previous decision was revoked, and the Registrar was directed to issue a Confirmation of Settlement letter and close the file.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator acted in bad faith, failed to examine all evidence, and erred in interpreting the law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's arguments were reiterations of positions articulated during the preliminary hearing and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested a summary hearing.

The applicant, who had recently turned 18, did not attend the teleconference hearing.

Her father, who had previously acted as her litigation guardian, attended in person but was unable to obtain instructions from the applicant to proceed.

The applicant advised her father via text that she did not wish to proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent tennis club brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to strike portions of the applicant's Reply, arguing it contained new allegations of condoning discrimination and failing to protect the applicant, and that these allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike, finding the allegations were already raised in the initial Application.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss the allegations for delay to the hearing, noting the evidence would be relevant to the reprisal claim in any event.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness had to attend important medical appointments with a family member.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to adjourn the hearing and directed the Registrar's office to contact the parties for rescheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming his pay was reduced and he was constructively dismissed.

The applicant subsequently requested to defer the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of a related civil action he commenced against the respondent in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, given the overlap in factual background and remedies sought.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to identify any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and instead sought to reargue matters from the original hearing.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reopening the matter and dismissed the request for reconsideration.