Alan G. Smith

The respondent requested deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and creed, pending the conclusion of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant and their union did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the key issue in the grievances—whether the respondent disciplined the applicant because of his disability—was also the key issue in the application, and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication.

The respondents requested a two-week extension of time to file their Response because the Tribunal's website was inaccessible, preventing them from accessing the necessary forms.

The applicant objected to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting its power under Rule 1.7 to lengthen time limits and finding the request appropriate given the website issues and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to promote.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process that raised substantially the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact and law, despite the applicant's concerns about delay in the arbitration process.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

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

A summary hearing was convened to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the start of the hearing, the applicant advised that he wished to withdraw the application.

The application was dismissed on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application 24 days after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) because he had sought timely advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, which incorrectly advised him of the limitation deadline based on his retirement date rather than the date of the last discriminatory incident.

Finding no substantial prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of negative treatment were not related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, nor were they attributed to instituting or participating in Code proceedings.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on creed, claiming the respondent residential facility failed to provide him with a halal diet.

The application was filed more than 18 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pursuit of an appeal at the Social Benefits Tribunal was not a good faith reason for the delay in filing under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the summary hearing process was unfair because the respondent was not required to file a response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the decision, which does not meet the strict criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process initiated by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the key issue of alleged harassment and differential treatment in the workplace was central to both proceedings.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and ensure rational litigation, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA), filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status.

The Tribunal noted its established practice of granting intervenor status to a union or association representing an applicant in a bargaining unit, absent exceptional circumstances.

Finding that the OPPA had a significant interest in the allegations and could offer a unique perspective, the Tribunal granted the OPPA intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after informing her employer of a pregnancy and a history of miscarriages.

She concurrently filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal.

An Employment Standards Officer (ESO) dismissed the ESA complaint, finding the termination was for bona fide business reasons.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Figliola, the Tribunal found that the ESO had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations and that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the same factual issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of dismissal from employment.

The respondent consented to the amendment but disputed the factual allegation that the applicant's employment was terminated.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the hearing was months away, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the respondent generally consented to the amendment.

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing by conference call to allow the applicant to clarify her allegations.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled conference call and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of his WSIB appeal.

The applicant requested to reactivate the application, arguing that any duplicate compensation could be repaid.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB process was still ongoing and that allowing the application to proceed would result in concurrent legal proceedings, thwarting the purpose of the deferral.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on multiple grounds after being escorted out of the respondent's hotel before closing time.

At a summary hearing, the applicant admitted he had no evidence linking his removal to his race, colour, or any other Code-related ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to allow the applicant to clarify his allegations.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled conference call and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to allow the applicant to clarify her allegations.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled conference call and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his union and his former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The applicant withdrew his application against the union at the start of the summary hearing.

Regarding the employer, the applicant alleged that a set of work rules imposed as a condition of re-employment were only applied to him as a person of colour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence that the work rules were applied differentially.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability against her former employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant conceded the union did not encourage her to settle her grievance, leading to the dismissal of allegations against the union.

The Tribunal also found the application against the employer was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented subject to the corporate respondent accepting vicarious liability.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and had the ability to remedy any Code infringement.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents from the proceeding.