Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in teaching hours reduction dismissed at summary hearing.
The applicant, a partial-load faculty member, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after his teaching hours were reduced from 10-12 hours to 3 hours per term.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were vague and impressionistic, and there was no evidence linking the reduction in hours to his race or colour.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with directions.
The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.
The applicant failed to comply with multiple Tribunal Directions requiring him to deliver his submissions to the respondent.
Finding that the applicant had abandoned the application by failing to participate further in the process, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear human rights complaints alleging that statutory benefit schemes are discriminatory.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the denial of his WSIB claim for chronic mental stress under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act was discriminatory on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal convened a three-member panel to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear a complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of statutory benefits.
The Tribunal concluded that benefits provided under a statute are 'services' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.
While the Tribunal does not have the power to review the substantive correctness of WSIB decisions or act as an appellate body, it has jurisdiction to hear challenges alleging that the statutory scheme itself is discriminatory.
The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the parties to file detailed pleadings.
Human rights application dismissed as untimely; later requests to rewrite exams did not extend limitation period.
The applicant, a former police cadet, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and ethnic origin after failing examinations and resigning in December 2009.
The application was filed in July 2011, beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant argued the discrimination was ongoing due to the respondent's refusal to let her rewrite the exams in 2011 and the destruction of her log books.
The Tribunal found these later events were not part of a series of incidents but attempts to revive a stale claim.
Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely.
Tribunal partially dismisses reprisal application but allows trespass letter allegation to proceed to hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the respondent school board and principal.
The applicant claimed that the respondents refused to accept delivery of a previous human rights application, issued a trespass letter, and had police deliver the letter with a warning.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the refusal of delivery and the police officer's actions, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation concerning the issuance of the trespass letter by the principal to proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant might be able to establish a link between the letter and his previous human rights claim.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence linking termination to disability.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated shortly after sending an email to his employer regarding his workplace limitations.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking his termination to his disability, relying solely on the coincidence in timing between his email and the termination for alleged theft.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Allegation of age discrimination removed from human rights application for failure to plead supporting material facts.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove an allegation of age discrimination from the Application, arguing that no material facts were pleaded to support it.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's only reference to age was a bald assertion that the respondent hired young advisors, which was insufficient to support a claim of age discrimination.
The Tribunal ordered the allegation of age discrimination removed from the Application.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; delay in filing was not incurred in good faith.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (a sleep disorder) following his termination for sleeping on the job.
The application was filed 22 months after the termination, which was 10 months beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.
The Tribunal found that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, acting for the applicant, had reason to make inquiries about the applicant's Code rights by April 2008 but failed to file the application until April 2009, instead pursuing other avenues of redress.
The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as out of time.
Tribunal finds sex discrimination and reprisal in undefended hearing; late-arriving respondent directed to file reconsideration request.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal.
The respondents failed to appear at the scheduled hearing time, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The adjudicator found that the applicant was passed over for promotion because she was a woman, was subjected to reprisal after raising concerns, and that the respondents failed to properly investigate her complaints.
When a respondent arrived late and sought to make submissions on the merits, the adjudicator directed them to file submissions on remedy or a Request for Reconsideration.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.
As none of the parties responded to the Notice, and there was substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.
Application dismissed for failure to attend summary hearing; subsequent correspondence treated as reconsideration request.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Shortly after the hearing, the applicant contacted the Tribunal, explaining he had attempted to connect at the scheduled time but in his local time zone (Central Standard Time) rather than Eastern Standard Time.
The Tribunal treated this correspondence as a request for reconsideration and directed the respondent to provide submissions.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant failed to establish procedural unfairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.
She alleged that the hearing process was unfair, that the adjudicator displayed bias, and that the decision contained factual errors and failed to address all evidence.
The Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the hearing procedure or the final decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure.
The adjudicator's findings of fact and credibility assessments were not proper grounds for reconsideration, and the request was dismissed.
Request to add individual respondents denied; request to amend application to add reprisal allegations granted.
The applicant sought to add two individual employees as respondents and to amend her application to include further allegations of reprisal, including termination.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the individual respondents because the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for their conduct.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding a factual and thematic connection between the original allegations regarding the use of advent calendars and the subsequent reprisal allegations.
Deferred human rights application re-activated as related ESA proceeding did not address discrimination allegations.
The applicant requested the re-activation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of a related Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.
The ESA proceeding concluded in the applicant's favour regarding unpaid overtime, termination pay, and reprisal.
The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding did not address the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on disability and marital status.
Consequently, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that it proceed to a hearing.
Request to defer human rights application pending WSIB proceeding denied as WSIB decision was final.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.
The applicant initially indicated it might be appropriate to defer the application pending a WSIB proceeding.
The Tribunal invited submissions on deferral.
The respondent opposed deferral because the WSIB had issued a final, unappealed decision regarding whether the injury was work-related.
The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the WSIB decision was final and did not address the human rights issues raised in the application, making it fair and just to proceed.
Identical human rights applications alleging disability discrimination consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The applicants filed identical applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against the same respondents.
The Tribunal applied the factors for consolidation and ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal also confirmed the parties' agreement to remove the personal respondent from the applications.
Human rights application dismissed; probationary employee terminated for innocent absenteeism, not disability discrimination.
The applicant, a probationary nurse, alleged that her employment was terminated on the basis of disability or perceived disability.
The employer maintained she was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism.
The Tribunal found that the employer had no knowledge of the applicant's alleged disability (dysmenorrhoea) or that her absences were related to a workplace injury or illness contracted at the hospital.
The Tribunal concluded that the termination was not discriminatory and dismissed the application.
Summary hearing adjourned due to applicant's alleged non-receipt of scheduling emails despite procedural non-compliance.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing, claiming he had a job interview and had not received the Tribunal's correspondence offering alternative dates.
Despite the applicant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules regarding communication, the adjudicator granted the adjournment to ensure fairness, noting the applicant's claim that he did not receive the scheduling emails.
The adjudicator also admonished the applicant for his unacceptable behaviour during the teleconference and directed that future scheduling communications be conducted by mail.
Reconsideration granted and interim decision set aside because applicant did not receive notice of respondent's request.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an Interim Decision that removed the individual respondent and dismissed the allegation of age discrimination.
The applicant argued she did not receive notice of the respondent's request that led to the Interim Decision.
The Tribunal found that the applicant, through no fault of her own, did not receive the request and that the Interim Decision was released before her extended deadline to respond had expired.
The request for reconsideration was granted and the Interim Decision was set aside.
Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application at preliminary stage, finding jurisdiction not plainly ousted.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding certain individual respondents, as the application appeared to lack specific allegations against them.
After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant alleged the respondents participated in a pattern of subtle racial discrimination.
The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.