Daniel Randazzo

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer terminated an accommodation plan, failed to accommodate her pregnancy, and stopped scheduling her for shifts.

The applicant had initially been accommodated by the General Manager by being scheduled to work in the main floor bar area instead of the second-floor dining room to avoid stairs.

When the co-owner returned from maternity leave, she changed the schedule, moving the applicant back to the dining room.

Despite the applicant providing medical confirmation of her need for accommodation, the co-owner refused to schedule her in the bar area, citing unwritten policies and an awkward interaction with patrons from a year and a half prior.

The Tribunal found that the respondents unilaterally withdrew the accommodation plan without establishing undue hardship, failed in their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, and constructively dismissed the applicant by failing to schedule her for shifts.

The Tribunal awarded $4,170.60 for lost wages and tips, and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board.

The original application alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, sex, and marital status related to his arrests and a strip search.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he was attempting to reargue issues of credibility, weight of evidence, and findings of fact already determined at the hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent children's aid society.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her hip injury by refusing to change her visitation time to allow for closer parking, and that the respondent cancelled her visitations as a reprisal for filing the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own beliefs to support her claims, and dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found they had discriminated against the applicant based on sex (pregnancy) and family status, and engaged in reprisal.

The respondents challenged only the quantum of the remedy, arguing the awards for general damages and lost wages were too high and in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondents failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established case law or raised a matter of general or public importance under Rule 26.5(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, an early childhood educator, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status, as well as reprisal, after her employment was terminated by the respondent preschool.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had adequately accommodated the applicant's family status and child care needs.

While the respondents ultimately granted the applicant's request for time off to attend pregnancy-related medical appointments, the Tribunal found that the request was a factor in the respondents' decision to terminate her employment 72 hours later.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was discriminatory and constituted a reprisal for seeking accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $5,587 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged that the Toronto Police Services Board discriminated against him on the basis of ethnic origin, sex, and marital status during two arrests for domestic violence and breach of recognizance, a strip search, and the failure to charge his ex-girlfriend with assault.

The Tribunal found that the police officers had reasonable grounds to arrest the applicant based on the complainant's statements and his prior history.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers over the applicant, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or conduct in the arrests, the strip search, or the decision not to charge the complainant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the remaining issues should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a manager as a personal respondent to her human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her pregnancy.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, arguing it was a tactical delay and requesting an adjournment.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's alleged conduct was central to the application and that the corporate respondent's recent destruction by fire raised legitimate concerns about its ability to pay any potential remedial order.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to have a witness testify by teleconference and to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The respondent filed an RFOP seeking to adjourn the hearing and an extension of time to file documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for teleconference testimony due to potential credibility issues and settlement privilege concerns.

The request to adjourn was denied as no exceptional circumstances were shown.

The respondent's request for an extension of time to file documents was granted, with any prejudice to be addressed at the hearing.

The request to add a personal respondent was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was allegedly denied accommodation for a wrist injury.

The application was filed approximately 23 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for several periods of delay, including a five-month period where she claimed to have had surgery but provided no medical evidence.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing obligations to disclose documents and provide a witness list, despite a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal for abuse of process and abandonment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to actively engage in the legal process and fulfill her obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability (epilepsy) regarding his employer's accommodation process.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations arising prior to November 4, 2010, were an abuse of process because they had been resolved through a union grievance settlement.

Most of the subsequent allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as they amounted to general unfairness without a link to the Code.

However, the Tribunal ordered further submissions regarding the employer's requests for the applicant to return to an independent medical examination, provide a lab report on medications, and the denial of straight day shifts pending cooperation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 45 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after being evicted from various homeless shelters for using medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the provincial ministries that fund the shelters.

The applicant conceded the application against the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Minister of Community and Social Services, finding that the provision of funding alone was insufficient to establish a link between the Ministry and the alleged discriminatory acts of the shelters.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Both parties failed to comply with their pre-hearing obligations to disclose documents and witness lists.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ordering compliance and warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

When the applicant failed to comply with the direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, record of offences, race, and place of origin, culminating in his termination.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to the applicant's termination had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding, which upheld the discharge.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination allegations under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegations against individual respondents, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant, a highly credentialed teacher, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of age when it did not select him for its Occasional Teachers' List following an interview.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced adverse treatment, he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence linking the respondent's decision to his age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a tenant with a disability, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him, harassed him, and engaged in reprisal by knocking on his door to inform him his bicycle was being moved, despite a 'do not disturb' sign and an alleged accommodation agreement requiring written communication.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' actions were reasonable, did not constitute discrimination or harassment, and were not a reprisal for previous human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after his offer of employment was revoked following his request for parental leave.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his Application to include additional remedies and an allegation that the respondent failed to investigate his complaint.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and raised a new cause of action.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the original Application already contained the factual allegation that no investigation was conducted, and that any prejudice to the respondent was mitigated by the fact that the hearing had already been adjourned for unrelated reasons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring both parties to fulfill their pre-hearing obligations, including the disclosure of documents and witness lists.

While the respondent complied, the self-represented applicant failed to provide any of the required materials or confirm his intention to testify.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to actively engage in the legal process and dismissed the application as abandoned.