Ron Franklin

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.

The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by removing two paragraphs and revising others.

The respondents consented on the condition that the applicant file an amended application showing all changes in a single document.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the amendments narrowed the scope of the allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend her human rights application to include a subsequent event and to add a personal respondent.

The respondent consented to the addition of the subsequent event but opposed adding the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendment to add the subsequent event on consent.

Applying the three-part test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal denied the request to add the personal respondent, finding it unnecessary because the organizational respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and the individual's conduct was not central to the allegations as a whole.

The applicant brought a request to amend their human rights application to correct a typographical error, add allegations of reprisal that occurred after filing, and amend the remedial section.

The respondents brought requests to remove individual respondents and dismiss portions of the application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding it appropriate given the ongoing relationship and the timing of the request.

The Tribunal deferred deciding the remaining preliminary issues, noting they were inter-related with the amendment and could be addressed if the matter did not resolve at the upcoming mediation/adjudication.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of union grievances.

The applicant wished to pursue the matter at the Tribunal and asked her union to withdraw the grievances, but refused to sign a release required by the union for the withdrawal.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the grievances were still scheduled for arbitration and the request was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to choose her forum, and since she clearly intended to abandon the grievance process, requiring formal withdrawal of the grievances would be an unnecessary technicality.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant, a hospital employee with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate his disability when it refused to consider him for a full-time cleaner position.

He also alleged that his union discriminated against him by discouraging him from seeking accommodated positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the hospital met its procedural duty to accommodate by repeatedly requesting updated medical information, which the applicant failed to provide.

Without this information, the hospital could not safely accommodate him in a physically demanding role.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's allegations against the union to be not credible.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding, and to amend the application to include new allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the WSIB proceeding had not been unduly prolonged and that concurrent proceedings would risk inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which the Tribunal denied without reasons pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal also deferred deciding the applicant's request for document production until the parties filed their intended documents, and directed the scheduling of a case management conference call.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following a decision by the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondent employer opposed the reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the grievance process appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application but ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 and whether the claims against the respondent union have no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race-related grounds, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his disability by transferring him to a different position.

The applicant was concurrently appealing a WSIB decision regarding the availability of suitable modified work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

Applying the Calabria factors, the Tribunal found that the issues in both proceedings were substantially the same, centering on whether the respondent offered suitable work and accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending a final decision by the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

During the hearing of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, an issue arose regarding the disclosure of the applicant's Occupational Health and Safety file.

The file contained medical information and clinical notes.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the file to all parties, with the restriction that the medical information only be shared with representatives and witnesses who need to know it and only be used for the purposes of the application.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to provide particulars regarding her allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing that it would cause further delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the proposed amendments amplified existing allegations rather than introducing new ones, and that the proceedings were still at an early stage.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application after withdrawing a related grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondents opposed, arguing abuse of process.

The Tribunal allowed the reactivation, finding no abuse of process as no decision on the merits had been rendered at the grievance stage.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted requests to remove several personal respondents, noting the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to proceed against the individuals.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his sole counsel experienced an unexpected family medical emergency involving the premature birth of his child.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances justified a brief adjournment, as requiring the applicant to proceed would be unfair.

The hearing was adjourned and the parties were directed to provide new dates.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During a Proceeding to amend the remedies sought in his human rights application.

The proposed amendments included consolidating damages claims, clarifying requests for lost wages and benefits, and specifying that a consultant conduct an audit and training.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding they were clarifications of the original requests, would not cause prejudice to the respondents, and were appropriate despite being requested late in the proceeding.

The applicant, a probationary Director of Community Health Promotion, alleged she was terminated because of her work developing a program for Black male youth, claiming discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin.

The respondents maintained she was terminated for performance issues, including failing to complete a required Needs Assessment and poor time management.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation credible and reasonable, noting the employer had initially supported the youth program and even continued it briefly after the applicant's dismissal.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove discrimination was a factor in her termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability by his employer and union.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple procedural requests.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend his application to include new systemic discrimination allegations, finding it would prejudice the respondents at this late stage.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations relating to a January 2008 incident and workplace harassment as untimely.

The applicant was denied permission to call four additional witnesses due to late disclosure and lack of relevance.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend his application to allege that the union discouraged him from applying for positions requiring accommodation, and consequently dismissed the union's request to dismiss the application against it for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose medical records and particulars regarding his restrictions to the employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability and reprisal.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.

The applicant had appealed the WSIB decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal decided to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the WSIAT proceedings, as there were significant overlapping issues, such as whether the applicant voluntarily severed his employment or was dismissed.