Consent order issued directing employer to accommodate applicant's family status through specific scheduling conditions.
The applicant and respondent made a joint request for a final order to resolve an application regarding family status accommodation.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a consent order pursuant to s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing the respondent to schedule the applicant for work subject to specific conditions, including no weekend, early morning, or late evening shifts, until there is a material change in her family status obligations.
Human rights application alleging discrimination based on single occupancy cruise pricing dismissed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent cruise company discriminated against him on the basis of marital status and age by offering a 50% discount only to passengers sharing a cabin.
The applicant, who wished to travel alone and pay the single supplement, argued that older and unmarried individuals are less likely to have a travelling companion.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no connection between travelling alone and the prohibited grounds of marital status or age.
The Tribunal noted that the discount was available to anyone willing to share a cabin, regardless of their relationship to the other occupant.
Union and several personal respondents removed from human rights application alleging disability discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment against the City of Toronto, the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, and various individuals.
The Association and its president sought to be removed as respondents.
The Tribunal granted their request, finding that the union's mere participation in the accommodation process or failure to take the same position as the employee does not constitute a Code violation.
The Tribunal also removed three personal respondents, two on consent and one due to a lack of substantive allegations, but declined to remove one personal respondent against whom specific allegations of personal misconduct were made.
Request to expedite human rights application denied due to delay; applicant ordered to clarify discrimination allegations.
The applicant, a disabled woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of publicly funded health care services by the respondents.
The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the proceedings, citing ongoing harm.
The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite due to the applicant's delay in filing the application, noting the last alleged event occurred seven months prior.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found the application lacked clarity regarding how the Human Rights Code was violated and raised issues outside its jurisdiction, such as Charter and statutory violations.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a revised summary of allegations clarifying the specific Code violations.
Request to expedite granted due to urgency; interim remedy to continue IBI funding denied.
The applicant, a six-year-old boy with autism, alleged discrimination in the termination of his funding for Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy.
The applicant requested an interim remedy to continue funding pending the hearing and a request to expedite the proceedings.
The Tribunal granted the request to expedite due to the urgent circumstances, including the applicant's young age and the potential consequences of delayed therapy.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding it would not be just and appropriate as the applicant had already transitioned to full-time school and an interim remedy was not necessary to ensure an effective final remedy.
Request to reopen case and compel further document production due to late disclosure dismissed.
In an ongoing human rights application, the applicants filed a Request for Order seeking a declaration of non-compliance, further document production, and permission to reopen their case after the respondents disclosed arguably relevant documents months after the production deadline.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the documents should have been disclosed earlier, the applicants suffered no substantial prejudice.
The Tribunal noted that the late disclosure did not entitle the applicants to reopen their case on issues unrelated to the newly disclosed documents, and directed the applicants to request any further specific documents directly from the respondents before seeking Tribunal intervention.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory termination dismissed; layoff was based on financial reasons and seniority.
The applicant, who self-identifies as black and a Seventh-Day Adventist, alleged that his race, colour, and creed were factors in the termination of his employment.
The respondent employer maintained that the termination was a layoff due to a downturn in business, and the applicant was selected because he had the least seniority among senior technicians.
The Tribunal found the respondent's manager to be a credible witness and accepted that the layoff was for financial reasons based on seniority.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his race, colour, or religion played a part in the termination decision.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal grants anonymization request to protect child's medical information and orders amended witness statements.
The applicant, an employee at Wal-Mart, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status due to a schedule change that conflicted with her childcare responsibilities for her grandchild.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to anonymize her and her grandchild's names to protect the child's sensitive medical information.
The Tribunal also found that the witness statements provided by both parties did not comply with Rule 17 and ordered them to file amended statements.
Adjournment granted due to recent consolidation of applications and applicant's hospitalization.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing following the recent consolidation of two human rights applications.
The applicant argued that more time was needed to prepare, citing the short 12-day notice since consolidation and a recent two-month hospitalization.
The respondents opposed the adjournment, noting they had already arranged for witnesses to attend.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the recent consolidation and the applicant's hospitalization warranted providing more time to ensure appropriate notice and preparation.
Tribunal scheduled case conference and directed applicants to file statements detailing special diet discrimination claims.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding 14 applications alleging discrimination in the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works.
Following the release of the decision in the lead cases, the Tribunal scheduled a case conference to address the procedure for the remaining applications.
The applicants were directed to file statements outlining the basis of their discrimination claims, including the disabilities involved, medical recognition of required diet modifications, and evidence of extra food costs.
Special diet allowance program discriminated against ODSP recipients by underfunding or failing to fund certain diets.
Three lead complainants alleged that the special diet allowance component of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against them on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal established a four-part test to determine discrimination in the program: the claimant must have a disability, there must be general medical recognition that a special diet is required, the diet must lead to additional food costs, and the funding must be non-existent or significantly disproportionate to the costs.
The Tribunal found that the program discriminated against W. by failing to fund hypoproteinemia and underfunding hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.
S. was discriminated against due to underfunding for extreme obesity, and B. was discriminated against due to underfunding for hypercholesterolemia.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing benefits in accordance with the Code principles, but declined to award general damages or order a specific redesign of the program.
Request to expedite human rights application denied as the risk of wheelchair breakdown was speculative.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent's Assistive Devices Program refused to fund batteries for his power wheelchair.
The applicant filed a request to expedite the application, arguing his current wheelchair was at risk of breaking down.
The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's concerns were speculative and did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the matter over other applications.
The Tribunal also noted the applicant's five-month delay in filing the application.
Request to amend application to add reprisal allegations shortly before hearing dismissed to avoid adjournment.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal just weeks before the scheduled hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the amendment would require an adjournment and change the scope of the hearing.
The Tribunal noted there was little factual overlap between the original allegations regarding low floor bus service and the new reprisal allegations, and directed that the reprisal claims could be pursued in a separate application.
Tribunal declines to reconsider interim decision granting amendment to human rights application.
The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of failure to accommodate.
The Tribunal granted the amendment in an earlier interim decision after the respondent failed to file a timely response.
The respondent subsequently requested reconsideration of the interim decision and an adjournment of the hearing.
The Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision, finding the amendment appropriate given the lack of prejudice, and directed a case conference to address the adjournment request and hearing structure.
Unopposed request to amend human rights application granted.
The applicant filed an unopposed Request for Order to amend the Application.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the request, noting it was appropriate.
The respondent was ordered to file its witness statements and documents within one week, as the amendment altered the nature and scope of the Application.
Request to expedite dismissed as applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.
The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the human rights application, alleging that witnesses feared consequences from the respondent board and that employees were intimidated into filing a complaint that led to his resignation.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant provided no details or evidence to support his general allegations and failed to meet the high threshold of demonstrating truly urgent circumstances required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Motions to disqualify counsel and unlicensed representative dismissed; consolidation of human rights applications denied.
The applicants, five firefighters, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary motions.
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to remove the union's legal counsel, finding no prior solicitor-client relationship existed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' motion to disqualify the applicants' unlicensed representative, finding he fell within the 'unpaid friend' exemption under the Law Society Act and his representation did not constitute an abuse of process.
Finally, the Tribunal declined to consolidate the five applications, as each raised unique factual issues regarding the duty to accommodate.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend hearing or provide adequate medical documentation.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing medical reasons at the last minute.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide a medical note confirming his inability to attend and explaining the late notice.
The applicant provided a note that merely repeated his own statements and did not address the Tribunal's specific questions.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying his non-attendance and dismissed the application as abandoned.
Reconsideration request dismissed; adjudicator's request for counsel to maintain decorum did not create bias.
The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator who was accused of bias decided the recusal motion, and because the adjudicator had asked counsel to refrain from joking during a conference call.
The respondents also alleged the Tribunal failed to apply a specific Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it is standard practice for an adjudicator sitting alone to decide their own recusal motion, that asking counsel to maintain decorum does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of related grievance arbitration and OLRB proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, marital status, and association.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also filed a grievance against her employer and multiple applications against her union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) arising from the same facts.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process and the s. 74 and s. 87 applications at the OLRB, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to apply the Human Rights Code and that the OLRB proceedings involved overlapping facts and significant labour relations aspects.