Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 5, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance process regarding disability accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a failure to accommodate.

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because the accommodation issue was already being addressed through a joint worker re-entry team and an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues.

Tulloch v. Essar Steel Algoma, 2010 HRTO 9

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 29, 2009

Tribunal grants non-responding parties 15 days to file a Response and explain their delay.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

Two of the respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding parties to file a Response within 15 days of receiving the decision, along with an explanation for their delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so could result in the matter proceeding without further notice to them, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Victor Refalo v. Pickering Soccer Club, 2009 HRTO 2268

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 29, 2009

Adjournment granted due to extraordinary circumstances of respondents' counsel leaving their firm.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual harassment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the respondents requested an adjournment because the counsel with carriage of the matter left their firm, and the only other qualified lawyer had scheduling conflicts.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the departure of counsel constituted extraordinary circumstances and noting the respondents provided numerous alternative dates.

Jean Gardiner v. 1708840 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Mr. Rooter London et al., 2009 HRTO 2269

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 7, 2009

Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without reasonable explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of dental services by the respondent in 2007.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and was not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Akinkuowo v. Young, 2009 HRTO 2118

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 3, 2009

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent bank is federally regulated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over employment relations in the federally regulated banking sector.

Deane v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2009 HRTO 2101

Anser Farooq

2 cases2009–2009

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 2, 2009

Application dismissed; 'record of offences' protection under the Code requires a conviction, not merely criminal charges.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of 'record of offences' after the respondent terminated his employment as a school bus driver.

The applicant had been charged with criminal offences, but the charges were either withdrawn or resolved by a peace bond, and he was never convicted.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Human Rights Code definition of 'record of offences' strictly requires a conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or an offence under a provincial enactment.

Because the applicant was only charged and not convicted, he did not fall within the protected ground.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims based on association and announced intention to discriminate, as the underlying ground was not met.

The application was dismissed.

Abdul Jamal v. First Student Canada, 2009 HRTO 2083

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 1, 2009

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment arising from an incident at a 'Bus Ball'.

The corporate respondent requested deferral because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts, which were referred to arbitration.

The personal respondent also requested deferral pending the resolution of related criminal charges.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting its normal approach to defer when concurrent legal proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

Miller v. London Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 2071

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 26, 2009

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Bucci v. 1243696 Ontario Ltd., 2009 HRTO 2029

Alison Renton

Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent of the parties.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents did not object to the request, and the intervenor made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Graham v. Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 2009 HRTO 2001

Alison Renton

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Martin v. Cleland, 2009 HRTO 2010

Alison Renton

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had an outstanding grievance encompassing some of the same issues.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the considerable factual overlap and the potential for the arbitration to determine some of the issues.

Louis Davis v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, 2009 HRTO 2002

Alison Renton

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no Code-based reprisal or discrimination was alleged.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not allege facts within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, such as attempting to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as no basis for reprisal or any other ground of discrimination was provided.

Marie Harrison v. 1262510 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Price Chopper Grocery Store and Cheryl Collister, 2009 HRTO 1999

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 23, 2009

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Landry v. Hidden Valley Resort, 2009 HRTO 1991

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 23, 2009

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Thiessen v. Complex Services Inc., 2009 HRTO 1993

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 23, 2009

Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Tanya Gallant v. JSJ Insurance & Financial Group, 2009 HRTO 1992

Alison Renton

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 2, 2009

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent child protection proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, goods, services, and contracts.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the completion of a concurrent child protection trial.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the civil proceeding, noting the advanced stage of the concurrent matter.

The Tribunal also ordered a publication ban and sealed the file pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.

H.S. v. Children and Family Services for York Region, 2009 HRTO 1846

Alison Renton

Housing discrimination application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as allegations did not engage Code grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, disability, and being active in a tenant's committee.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's concerns related to general landlord and tenant disputes, such as incomplete work orders and rude behaviour, and did not link the treatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Handy v. Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, 2009 HRTO 1832

Alison Renton

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as allegations were not linked to prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, disability, and being active in a tenant's committee.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the allegations appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant provided submissions, but the Tribunal found that her complaints about unsatisfactory accommodations and landlord disputes were not linked to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cassandra Gienow v. Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, 2009 HRTO 1833

Alison Renton

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as allegations were not linked to prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and being active in a tenant's committee.

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction, but the applicant did not provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding unsatisfactory accommodations and landlord disputes were not linked to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Daplas v. Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, 2009 HRTO 1831

Alison Renton