Request for reconsideration of interim decision dismissed as the decision was not final.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dealt with requests to amend the subject-matter of his human rights complaint and a request to intervene by his bargaining agent.
The applicant argued the Tribunal acted in a biased manner by refusing some amendments and mischaracterizing his arguments.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of central issues, and that disagreement with a decision does not constitute evidence of bias.
Reconsideration request dismissed as new evidence could have been presented at the original hearing.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that partially upheld his human rights application.
He argued that new witness and medical evidence was available, that the hearing should have been bifurcated, and that reconsideration was necessary in the public interest.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence could reasonably have been presented at the original hearing, the procedure followed was not in conflict with established rules, and the public interest in finality outweighed the applicant's arguments.
Human rights application dismissed; employer fulfilled duty to accommodate police officer's disability with modified duties.
The applicant, a police platoon sergeant, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after suffering from tendonitis.
He claimed the employer failed to accommodate him by refusing his request for light duties.
The employer maintained that it offered an appropriate accommodation allowing the applicant to perform supervisory duties from the station without responding to field calls, but that the applicant rejected this offer.
The Tribunal found that the employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate by offering a reasonable accommodation within the applicant's restrictions, and that the employer could not provide the applicant's preferred accommodation of straight days without undue hardship.
The application was dismissed.
Requests for production of other applicants' files and a written statement from a potential witness denied.
The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on ethnic and place of origin regarding the assessment of her educational credentials filed requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, production of documents, and a written statement from the respondent's former Executive Director.
The Tribunal denied the requests for production and inquiry, finding the requested files of other applicants and statistics were not arguably relevant to whether the applicant herself was discriminated against.
The request for a written statement was also denied, as the individual could be summonsed as a witness at the hearing.
Late objections to processing three human rights applications together dismissed.
The applicant filed three applications under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision to process the applications together.
After the release of that decision, the Tribunal received late submissions from the respondents objecting to the joint processing.
The Tribunal reviewed the late submissions and determined they would not have changed the result of the earlier interim decision.
Tribunal orders partial production of law school admissions records in discrimination claim.
The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of country of origin after being denied admission to the respondent's law school, filed requests for the production of various admissions records and a witness statement.
The Tribunal partially granted the document production requests, ordering the respondent to produce a list of LSAT scores and GPAs for successful candidates and redacted minutes of the Admissions Committee's review of mature student applications.
The request for a witness statement from the Dean was denied as premature.
Tribunal partially allows complaint amendments and removes one personal respondent while denying interim relief.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin.
The applicant sought to amend the complaint to add new allegations, increase the monetary remedy sought, and add several individual respondents.
The respondents sought to strike the amendments and remove the existing individual respondents.
The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to the applicant's self-description, health effects, and increased monetary remedies, but denied the addition of new allegations and systemic discrimination claims.
The Tribunal removed one individual respondent whose involvement was tangential, but retained two others who played a central role in the employment relationship.
The applicant's request for interim remedies was denied due to a lack of supporting evidence.
Application against employer dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; application against union deferred pending grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed two human rights applications against her former employer and her union.
The employer requested dismissal on the basis that the original complaint was dismissed by the Commission and not continued under section 53 of the Code.
The union requested dismissal or deferral pending an ongoing grievance arbitration regarding the applicant's termination.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer for lack of jurisdiction, as the complaint was not a 'continued' complaint.
The Tribunal deferred the application against the union pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings on the same issues.
Three human rights applications alleging racial discrimination by police directed to be processed together.
The applicant filed three separate human rights applications alleging discrimination in respect of services on the basis of race by different police services boards and officers.
The Tribunal gave notice of its intention to process the applications together.
The applicant objected, arguing the incidents were independent and joining them would impose an undue burden on his representative.
The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed together, finding that the complaints were identical or substantially similar in nature and that separate hearings would only add to the length, cost, and complexity of the process.
Reconsideration request denied after applicant failed to explain why she allegedly missed hearing notice.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failure to attend a Case Resolution Conference.
She claimed she did not receive notice of the hearing.
The Tribunal directed her to provide details supporting this claim, but she failed to respond despite being given ample opportunity.
The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5.
Occasional derogatory name calling constituted sex-based harassment but did not create a poisoned work environment.
The applicant alleged he was subjected to a poisoned work environment and constructive dismissal due to harassment based on ancestry, creed, disability, ethnic origin, marital status, place of origin, and sex.
The Tribunal found that a team leader occasionally referred to the applicant using a derogatory term related to perceived infertility, constituting harassment on the basis of sex.
The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable because the team leader exercised some management functions.
However, the Tribunal concluded the harassment was not pervasive enough to create a poisoned work environment and did not justify the applicant's decision to leave his employment.
The applicant was awarded $2,000 in general damages.
Union granted leave to intervene in member's human rights application against university.
The York University Faculty Association (YUFA) brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking leave to intervene in a human rights application filed by a faculty member against the university.
The applicant objected to the intervention on various grounds, including alleged bad faith and insufficient particulars.
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's objections, finding that YUFA, as the applicant's bargaining agent, had a substantial interest in the proceedings and was involved in concurrent related proceedings.
The request to intervene was granted, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at the hearing.
Request to strike without prejudice settlement offer from the record granted due to settlement privilege.
The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to strike a letter from the record.
The letter was an offer to settle the human rights complaint and was written on a without prejudice basis.
The applicant objected, arguing the privilege was hers to waive.
The Tribunal held that the letter was privileged, the privilege belonged to the respondents, and it had not been waived.
The Request for Order was granted and the letter was sealed.
Union granted intervenor status in human rights application where requested remedies could affect bargaining unit members.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and age, reprisal, and sexual solicitation.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 241 requested to intervene, arguing the remedies sought could affect its members.
The applicant objected, citing a conflict of interest.
The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding the application raised issues of general interest to the union, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator.
Amendment to human rights complaint struck as out of time due to unexplained three-year delay.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination in 2005.
In 2008, the Commission accepted an amendment adding the ground of disability and alleging a failure to accommodate between 2003 and 2005.
The respondents brought a preliminary request to strike the amendment as out of time.
The Tribunal found that the amendment was filed more than three years after the last alleged incident of failure to accommodate.
As the applicant offered no explanation for the delay to satisfy the good faith requirement under section 34(2) of the Code, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request and struck the amendment.
City of Toronto added as a respondent to human rights application on consent.
The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to add the City of Toronto as a respondent to a human rights application.
On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the City of Toronto be added as a respondent, without prejudice to its right to raise delay arguments, and directed it to file a response within 60 days.
Personal respondent removed from human rights application where no specific allegations were made against him.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the respondent College and its administrators.
The Tribunal considered a request to remove the College's President and CEO as a personal respondent.
Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual, as there were no specific allegations against him and the College would be vicariously liable for any proven Code violations.
The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.
Personal respondent removed from human rights application where corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.
The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and colour following his termination.
The respondents requested an order to remove the former Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board as a personal respondent.
Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the Board's decisions and capable of remedying any Code violations.
As the Chair's involvement was limited to his institutional role, his continued inclusion would unnecessarily complicate and delay the proceedings.
The request was granted and the Chair was removed as a respondent.
Human rights allegations regarding past job competitions dismissed due to unexplained delay and prejudice from destroyed records.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in 33 job competitions since 1992.
The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss allegations relating to competitions that occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the original complaint.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide particulars establishing a series of incidents and failed to show that the delay was incurred in good faith.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondents would suffer substantial prejudice because job competition files are routinely shredded after two years.
The request was granted, and the respondents were not required to respond to the out-of-time allegations.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the underlying human rights complaint was not continued.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code to transfer a complaint from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Tribunal.
The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had dismissed the complaint in December 2007 and the applicant's request for reconsideration was untimely.
The Tribunal found that the complaint was not a 'continued complaint' under section 53 because it had been disposed of by the Commission and not reconsidered.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.