Marisa Scotto di Luzio

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaint as abandoned after he failed to respond to a single email inquiring about the status of related WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal had refused to reconsider the dismissal, focusing solely on whether the email was delivered rather than conducting a contextual analysis of abandonment.

The Divisional Court held that inferring abandonment from the failure to respond to one email, given the applicant's history of compliance and the ongoing nature of the WSIB proceedings, was unreasonable.

The application was granted, the dismissal order was quashed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his Application to correct typographical errors and add subsequent incidents of alleged discrimination.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it timely and noting that the additional allegations were of a similar character to the original claims without causing prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant, a boilermaker with a prescription for medical marijuana, alleged discrimination by his union regarding drug testing policies and hiring hall dispatch.

The union respondents raised jurisdictional objections, arguing the matter fell under federal or OLRB jurisdiction, and sought to add two entities as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional objections, finding the core allegations related to human rights violations in Ontario.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the two proposed respondents, as the applicant made no allegations against them and the Code does not permit third-party claims.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, the applicant sought to add two witnesses (her neurologist and a co-worker) and 13 documents to her evidence list.

The respondent opposed the request as untimely and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests, finding no abuse of process or prejudice to the respondent given the ample notice and time to respond.

The Tribunal also struck the evidence of a previously heard witness, as it was no longer relevant to the remaining issues in the case.

The applicant, initially self-represented, brought Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the names of the respondents to their correct legal names and to add public interest remedies to her Application.

The respondents did not file responses or object to the requests.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding no prejudice to the respondents and no significant impact on the course of the hearing.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA make documents generated during the complaint process inadmissible in another proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to properly name the organizational respondent, add grounds of colour and sex, and add remedies, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy stages.

The applicant, a tenant with a mobility impairment, alleged discrimination based on disability after being denied a parking space close to his building.

The respondents claimed parking was not included in the lease and required an additional fee.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of parking could constitute an adverse impact due to disability-related needs, and the respondents may have failed in their procedural duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested an interim order to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal and to allow her physicians to testify by teleconference.

The respondent did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it was based on facts already pleaded and caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal also permitted the physicians to testify by video conference or teleconference, noting the respondent failed to show any significant prejudice.

The applicant requested an amendment to a final decision to reflect the correct legal name of the corporate respondent, changing 'Impression Bridal Inc.' to 'Impression Bridal Ltd.' The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to its Rules and section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, noting the error was inadvertent and the respondent had participated in the hearing without raising the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by a co-worker.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the co-worker as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it would be fair to add the co-worker, who had not responded to the request despite being personally served.

The request to add the personal respondent was granted.

The applicant, who suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, alleged he was terminated from his employment because of his disability and perceived disability.

The respondent claimed the applicant voluntarily resigned because he found the job too stressful.

The Tribunal found the applicant's version of events more credible, supported by contemporaneous notes from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and text messages.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was terminated and his disability was a factor.

The respondent was ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $33,280 for lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination by the respondent, a First Nation organization.

The Tribunal questioned whether the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted that she was employed to provide Ontario Works services, which is a provincial program, and that labour relations are presumptively within provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application proceed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination (pregnancy) requested an interim order for the production of documents from the respondent and a third party (Rogers Communications), as well as an order to amend her application to include a claim for damages for injury to dignity and a request for human rights training.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal granted the requests, ordering the respondent to produce relevant text and instant messages, ordering Rogers Communications to produce call detail records at the applicant's expense, and permitting the amendment of the application.

The applicant, a cabinet-maker, suffered a workplace knee injury and was unable to perform modified work offered by the respondent because it required standing and the use of crutches.

The respondent terminated his employment for refusing the modified work.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability contrary to section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.