Laura Cassiani

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 respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the interim decision did not dispose of any central issues and was therefore not a final decision.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it could not address the request for reconsideration and denied it.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code.

She claimed that during visits to the respondent's emergency room for pain related to a rotated spine, a physician wrote in her chart that she was a 'drug seeker' and questioned her about drug use.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to her disability.

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

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code breaches.

The applicant subsequently amended his civil Statement of Claim to remove all references to the Code and any allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that because the amended civil claim no longer contained allegations of Code infringements, the Application was not barred by section 34(11).

The respondents' request for dismissal was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include allegations of harassment and discrimination regarding the accommodation process prior to her termination.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice due to the passage of time and the closure of its business.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment in part, finding that the specific allegations relating to emails from September and October 2014 were timely as they occurred within one year of the request to amend.

Allegations prior to August 20, 2014, were deemed untimely but could be introduced as background information.

The Tribunal issued a letter seeking submissions on whether to defer the human rights application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant's parallel proceeding under the Public Hospitals Act before the Hospital Board of Directors and any subsequent appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's complaint to the College of Nurses of Ontario and a judicial review in an unrelated case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the College complaint was only at the investigation stage, did not address allegations of discrimination, and did not involve the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal also found that deferring for an unrelated judicial review would cause undue delay and was highly speculative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination from employment.

The applicant had previously grieved his termination through his union, resulting in a final settlement where he received compensation in exchange for a full release of all outstanding issues.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the same factual issues already resolved in the grievance settlement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, seeking to set aside Minutes of Settlement reached during mediation.

The applicant alleged he signed the settlement under financial duress, misunderstood the monetary amount, and was affected by medication.

The Tribunal found that difficult financial circumstances do not amount to economic duress sufficient to vitiate a contract.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence regarding the applicant's medication or lack of capacity.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process, and the settlement remained binding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and sex, claiming the personal respondent conducted an inadequate investigation into her allegations of sexual harassment by a store manager.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent assumed liability for the personal respondent's conduct, her conduct was not central to the allegations, and there would be no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.

The respondent requested the consolidation of three separate human rights applications filed by different applicants against the same respondent.

The applicants either consented to or did not oppose the consolidation and joint mediation, or failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal found a strong public interest in consolidating the matters and ordered the three applications consolidated and scheduled for a joint mediation session.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision regarding the consolidation of three separate applications filed against the same organizational respondent.

The Tribunal consolidated two of the applications on consent of the parties and directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether a third application should also be consolidated and mediated together with the others.

The applicant requested that a scheduled summary hearing be adjourned sine die, and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The applicant also alleged bias and requested the appointment of an independent board or person to hear the application.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the OLRB proceeding and noted it has no authority to appoint another board or person to decide applications under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was dismissed from her employment because she took pregnancy and parental leave.

The respondent employer subsequently commenced an application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking declarations regarding the employment relationship and requested that the Tribunal defer its proceedings pending the court's decision.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the Tribunal application was more advanced and that deferring to a later-filed court proceeding could encourage forum shopping and delay.

The Tribunal also deferred ruling on the applicant's request to amend her application to allege reprisal, noting the potential application of absolute privilege.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent terminated his employment rather than accommodating his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Act claim for termination pay.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the other proceeding was not yet complete.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the significant factual overlap between the two proceedings warranted deferral to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, constructive dismissal, and interference with future employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the multiple delays in bringing forward her allegations and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant youth applied to be released from a secure treatment program, arguing that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124 of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including the applicant's escalating substance abuse, self-harming behaviour, and psychiatric assessments.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his judgment and posed a substantial threat of bodily harm.

The Board concluded that all statutory criteria for admission were satisfied and ordered that the applicant not be released.