Human Rights Tribunal Of Ontario Process

I was curious this morning and looked up the Procedure of HRTO and noticed they have changed recently. The only validation I need these days is my own. It is so important to make meaning of all this mess. They have become more strict on their Procedures and what they want in their applications.

I’ve been thinking that maybe HRTO should start charging a fee to apply, like everything else there, as it would keep out so many frivolous claims!

I was a little confused during my own process with HRTO from June 2018 – January 2020, as I kept seeing the Toxic Tenants who filed against me claiming that it was the duty of HRTO to request their Tenant File, request my internet history, and request that I stop sending emails to them in response to what they sent. They asked the HRTO to do so many things that are not part of their procedures.

It wasn’t the HRTO’s job to tell these Tenants what to do, it is their responsibility to find out what is required of them for a proper Application for their process. If they were confused they had resources to go to, just as I did.

My last post was about Invalidation by the Toxic Tenants when even the HRTO takes into account how the event affected me financially, socially, emotionally, in my mental health, and any other effects I had from it. This is why I made sure to include my mental issues all the time in my documents, as it was important.

How the event affected you (e.g. financial, social, emotional, mental health, or other effect)

In all honesty, I didn’t care about the HRTO applications against me as I knew the truth would come out, I was more concerned with the actions they did with websites and social media at the time. They were using their HRTO applications as validation for their claims when they were still being reviewed. They didn’t win their case but they acted online as if they did!

They used their websites and social media at the time to claim they proved their allegations when they only just started the process! By utilizing websites and social media platforms, they tried to present evidence supporting their false allegations and assert their claims to the public. These digital platforms provided them with an opportunity to reach a larger audience, hoping to establish credibility and garner support for their assertions while their applications were still in process. Just as they are doing now with their new sites.

They shared private documents, videos, images, and personal opinions, trying to substantiate their claims and convince their audience of the validity of their allegations. They shared these things against the policies of the HRTO!

Additionally, I know they engaged with their followers, responded to inquiries, addressed counterarguments, and encouraged individuals to share their own experiences or evidence supporting the allegations against me. They even tried to send people after me by sharing my email and address where I lived!

Ultimately, the use of websites and social media allowed them to amplify their message and lay forth the arguments they believed justified their allegations while it was still before the HRTO, just as they are doing now to other Targets in connaughtpublicschool.com.

The websites are publicly accessible and are freely found by Members of the HRTO as well. Everyone can see that these Anonymous writers are sharing applications they submitted before it is even accepted for their process and they know who they are!

This act can cause their application to be dismissed, just as their sites caused the Summary Hearing in my case to be set. I firmly believe the Summary Hearing would have caused the files against me to be dismissed because of the many websites they had at the time filled with their smear campaigns against me and others named. They had nothing to connect my actions to any Code grounds, just their word that it happened as they said it did.

I also firmly believe their new websites will cause HRTO to dismiss their new applications as they are breaking their Rules of Procedures once again. Patience is needed for the Tribunal to do its work…

Everything below was copied from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario website and is easy to understand. These are their Rules.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario | Tribunals Ontario

Confidentiality of Documents Disclosed Under These Rule
3.3Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.
HRTO | Rules of Procedure (tribunalsontario.ca)
Section 6.1: What Happened

This is where you get to tell your story about the discrimination you experienced. You need to explain:

  • What happened
  • When it happened (day/month/year)
  • Where it happened
  • How the respondent was responsible
  • How the event affected you (e.g. financial, social, emotional, mental health, or other effect)

Describe the events in chronological order. Start from the beginning and end on the date of the last incident. Be sure to include every incident and explain each one. A helpful way to make your story clear is to include only one incident or event in a paragraph and to number the paragraphs so you can refer back to them if necessary.

Provide enough detail to explain what happened, when and where it happened, who was there, and how the event(s) affected you. Also, if the way you were treated was different from the way other people were treated, be sure to explain that as well. You must explain why you believe that the treatment you received was because of the prohibited grounds you identified in section 5.

Section 6.2: Connection to Grounds and Discrimination Claimed

This section asks you to “make the connection” between the events you described in section 6.1 and the Code ground(s) you identified in section 5.

Fields will appear for each ground you checked in section 5. If you selected multiple grounds you may need to answer the questions relating to each of these grounds. In this section it is important to show the link between the events you detailed and the Code ground(s) you are claiming discrimination under.

Jurisdiction Review

Once your Application is found to be complete, an adjudicator will review it to see if the discrimination you experienced is covered by the Code and is within the HRTO’s power (jurisdiction) to decide.

This will include, among other things, checking to see whether the Application appears to have been filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination, whether the respondent may be a federally regulated business or organization, whether there is an ongoing civil proceeding, and whether your Application makes allegations that fall under a ground or social area not covered by the Code.

HRTO | Applicant’s Guide (tribunalsontario.ca)

The HRTO cannot provide any legal advice but will give information about possible places to get help.

Communications that are unduly lengthy, repetitive or disrespectful of any other participant or the Tribunal may be rejected.


What is Outside of the HRTO’s Jurisdiction?

A common jurisdictional issue that the HRTO reviews is that the application fails to link the applicant’s Code ground(s) to the adverse treatment that the applicant received.

For a matter to fall within the HRTO’s jurisdiction, an applicant must provide some factual basis beyond a bald assertion linking their ground(s) to action(s) taken by the respondent and provide an explanation as to why they think that these actions were discriminatory. It is not enough that the treatment that the applicant received was unfair.

An applicant cannot just say that they have been discriminated against and were treated badly by the respondent. They must provide some detail linking the unfairness experienced, in whole or in part, to one of the protected grounds set in the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.). In other words, they must provide some detail about their enumerated ground(s) and explain why they believe that the negative treatment they experienced was because of their enumerated ground(s).

An application which fails to do so may be outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.

Other common examples of applications that have been found to be outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction include (but are not limited to):

  • The application does not set out the elements of reprisal under the Code

Procedure

The HRTO will review the application, assess and identify any jurisdictional issues. Jurisdictional issues can be raised and addressed by the HRTO at any time during the process.

Where it appears to the HRTO that a matter may be outside of its jurisdiction, the HRTO will request the applicant provide information or submissions.

The HRTO will notify the applicant of its concerns and request that the applicant provide written information and submissions with respect to the jurisdictional issue(s). Such requests will include:

  1. Notice that the HRTO has identified that the application may be outside of its jurisdiction
  2. A brief summary of the jurisdictional issue(s)
  3. Notice that the applicant must file written submissions and a deadline for doing so, and
  4. Notice that the HRTO will consider the submissions and then decide whether to continue to process the application or to dismiss it as being outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.

In some cases, in accordance with Rule 1.7, the HRTO may also request that the respondent (where they have been served with the application) provide information and submissions on a specific issue or that the applicant provide evidence to support all or part of their application.

If after reviewing the submissions the HRTO determines that the matter is outside of its jurisdiction, the HRTO will issue a written decision dismissing the application. An oral hearing will only be ordered in exceptional circumstances1.

A copy of the decision will be sent to the parties and published on the Canadian Legal Information Institute website.

Where the HRTO decides not to dismiss the application, the parties will be informed that the application will continue in the HRTO’s process. This is not a final decision regarding the jurisdiction issue(s) and the issue(s) may be raised again later in the proceedings.

HRTO | Practice Direction on Jurisdiction (tribunalsontario.ca)


Discover more from Stella Reddy's Story

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.