Human rights application dismissed; employer not required to pay for overtime work the accommodated employee cannot perform.
The applicant, a Special Constable with the Toronto Transit Commission, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because his permanent physical restrictions from a workplace injury prevented him from performing overtime work, resulting in lost income.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to pay an employee for work they are physically unable to perform.
The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to add an untimely allegation of age discrimination from 2004.
Motion to dismiss application as abuse of process for failure to produce medical documents denied.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to fully comply with orders to produce her WSIB file and other medical documents.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant had not completely complied with the production orders, her conduct did not amount to an abuse of process warranting dismissal.
The Tribunal noted that the missing post-termination medical documents primarily related to the issue of remedy rather than the central issue of whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant prior to termination.
Request for reconsideration of summary dismissal denied as applicant merely repeated previous submissions.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated his previous submissions and failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for failing to link workplace unfairness to Code grounds.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant's complaints centered on general workplace unfairness, bullying by co-workers, and discipline imposed by the employer, but she could not link these events to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.
Human rights application dismissed; employer's repeated requests for medical information during leave did not constitute harassment.
The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being terminated following a medical leave of absence.
The Tribunal dismissed the termination aspect of the claim under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding it had already been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding where an officer concluded the termination was for wilful misconduct.
On the remaining issue of whether the employer's repeated requests for medical information constituted harassment, the Tribunal found the requests were reasonable and necessary to assess the leave and potential accommodation.
The employer's warnings about the consequences of failing to provide the information did not constitute a reprisal.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to a prior settlement and OLRB proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed against her former employer and her union.
The respondents sought early dismissal of the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed a valid full and final release resolving grievances related to her dismissal, barring the application against the employer.
The Tribunal also found that the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no nexus to Code grounds, and it constituted an abuse of process because the issues were or should have been raised in a prior duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; medical evidence did not excuse the delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment slightly more than one year after the last alleged incident.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.
The applicant argued the delay was due to moving abroad and suffering from depression.
The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not establish incapacity and noted the applicant was completely well by August 2011, leaving the subsequent delay unexplained.
The application was dismissed as out of time.
Human rights application regarding denial of short-term disability benefits dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability after his short-term disability benefits were terminated by the respondent.
The Tribunal found that the dispute was simply about entitlement to benefits and whether the applicant was unable to work, not about differential treatment based on disability.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Reconsideration request dismissed; interim decisions allowing applications to proceed are not final decisions subject to reconsideration.
The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that found the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure only permits reconsideration of final decisions.
Because the interim decision merely allowed the application to proceed and did not finally dispose of any central issues, it was not a final decision subject to reconsideration.
Tribunal clarifies wage loss calculation, basing deemed mitigation on a 35-hour work week.
In a decision on remedy following a finding of liability, the Tribunal addressed calculation issues regarding the applicant's wage loss and pension.
The Tribunal found it was not functus officio on the calculation of the tax gross-up and deemed mitigation, as these were not previously disputed.
The Tribunal held that the deemed mitigation deduction should be based on the applicant's regular 35-hour work week rather than a 40-hour week.
The issue of overtime entitlement was dismissed as previously determined.
The Tribunal remained seized of the outstanding pension contribution issues.
Request to remove respondents granted; application held in abeyance pending decisions in similar cases.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board and several individuals.
The applicant requested to remove three individual respondents from the application, which the Tribunal granted on consent.
The Tribunal also noted that the respondents sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.
The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance pending the release of decisions in similar cases, unless the parties objected within seven days.
Request for order compelling compliance with confidentiality rules denied after self-represented applicant acknowledged unwitting violation.
The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to compel the self-represented applicant to comply with Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and cease sharing documents with the Ontario Ombudsman or other third parties.
The applicant conceded she had unwittingly violated the rule out of ignorance and indicated her intent to comply.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant's conduct was inappropriate and violated the rule, no order was required at this time given her acknowledgment and intent to comply.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with disclosure rules.
The applicant filed an application under section 23 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting the parties' failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, statements, and documents.
The applicant was directed to file the required materials within 7 days or face dismissal for abandonment.
Having received no communication or materials from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Request for production of documents regarding prior trespass letters and a notarized declaration from counsel dismissed.
The applicant in a human rights reprisal claim filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of documents related to prior trespass letters issued by the respondent school board, witness statements, and a notarized declaration from the respondents' counsel regarding disclosure.
The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the circumstances of prior trespass letters were collateral to the issue of whether the specific trespass letter in this case was a reprisal.
The Tribunal also found the witness statements irrelevant to the remaining issues and rejected the request for a notarized declaration from counsel as improper and offensive.
Applicant's requests for production conditions and anonymization denied; respondent's adjournment request denied as premature.
The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking specifics regarding medical records sought by the respondent, an order that the respondent pay for the records, and an order that the respondent obtain WSIB records directly.
The applicant also requested anonymization of the Tribunal's decisions.
The respondent requested an extension of time and an adjournment.
The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, ordering her to comply with a previous production order, and found no basis for anonymization.
The respondent's requests were denied as premature.
Tribunal orders corporate respondent to produce arguably relevant documents from individual respondent's personnel file.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents from the individual respondent's personnel file and another specific document.
The Tribunal found that the requested personnel file documents were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute and ordered their production.
Regarding the second document, the Tribunal directed the parties to attempt to resolve the redaction of personal information of other employees, with leave to seek further direction if unsuccessful.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent civil actions involving overlapping factual issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent terminated his employment during a medical leave and failed to assist him in obtaining insurance benefits.
The applicant also commenced two civil actions related to his injuries and insurance benefits.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code.
Finding a significant overlap in key factual disputes between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil actions to avoid inconsistent results.
Motion to add individual respondent granted where corporate employer had been dissolved.
The applicant sought to add Makesh Samoondar as an individual respondent and remove the corporate respondent, Connect Personnel, which had been dissolved.
The applicant alleged sexual harassment and solicitation during her employment.
The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found that since the corporate respondent no longer existed, the proposed individual respondent, who was the sole director and president of the dissolved corporation, should be added as a party to prevent him from being shielded from potential liability.
The request was granted.
Human rights application dismissed for delay and because citizenship preference in hiring was legally required.
The applicant, a former post-doctoral fellow, alleged discrimination on the basis of citizenship regarding a 2008 departmental dispute and the respondent's job advertisements preferring Canadian citizens.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the 2008 dispute as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and because they did not engage the protected ground of citizenship.
The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation regarding the job advertisements, finding that the preference for Canadian citizens was required by federal immigration law and therefore protected by section 16(1) of the Human Rights Code.
Unopposed adjournment request denied for failing to show extraordinary circumstances.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing an unspecified scheduling conflict.
The respondents did not oppose the request.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the dates had been set months in advance based on the parties' availability, and the applicant failed to provide details of the conflict or explain why another lawyer could not handle the matter.
The Tribunal found no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to justify the adjournment.