Union's request to intervene in member's human rights application regarding workplace accommodation granted.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the school board and an individual respondent.
The applicant's union, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, filed a request to intervene, arguing it had a significant interest in any remedial issues, the accommodation process, and the interpretation of the collective agreement.
As the application raised issues of general interest to the union, the Tribunal granted the request to intervene, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.
Request to remove personal respondent denied as her individual conduct was a central issue.
The applicant filed human rights applications against corporate and personal respondents.
The respondents requested an order to remove three personal respondents from the proceedings.
The applicant consented to the removal of two but objected to the removal of one personal respondent.
The Tribunal applied the factors for removing a personal respondent and found that the individual's conduct was a central issue in the failure to accommodate claim, and that the applicant was seeking an apology specifically from her.
The Tribunal concluded there was a compelling reason to continue the application against the personal respondent and dismissed the request for removal.
Request for Tribunal ordered inquiry denied; respondent ordered to provide substantive responses to document production requests.
The applicant filed requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to obtain documents and particulars from the respondents.
The Tribunal denied the request for an inquiry, noting that it is not a substitute for the usual production process.
However, to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, the Tribunal ordered the respondent University of Ottawa to provide substantive responses to the applicant's earlier requests for production and particulars.
Requests for reconsideration of interim decisions dismissed as applicants merely attempted to re-argue issues.
The applicants requested reconsideration of two interim decisions (2009 HRTO 561 and 2009 HRTO 702) in which the Tribunal found that their human rights complaints were not continued against several respondents.
The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the applicants merely attempted to re-argue the issues and did not meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Human rights application dismissed; termination was due to insubordination, not family status discrimination.
The applicant alleged she was discriminated against in employment on the basis of family status, claiming she was terminated for taking time off to care for her children.
The employer maintained the termination was due to the applicant's disrespectful and insubordinate behaviour, including creating a scene in front of customers and hanging up on the employer.
The Tribunal found the employer's explanation plausible and untainted by discriminatory considerations, concluding the employer had met any duty to accommodate.
The application was dismissed.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to satisfy Rule 25.5 criteria.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her human rights application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions merely expressed disagreement with findings of fact and did not satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish grounds under Rule 25.5.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application.
She argued that the hearing process conflicted with established Tribunal procedure, alleging she did not receive her full two days of hearing, witnesses were not excluded, and she was improperly ordered to produce a privileged document.
The Tribunal found that the hearing took two full days, the management of witnesses and documents was within its discretion, and the applicant was attempting to re-argue the merits of the case.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as the underlying decision was interim, not final.
The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision (2009 HRTO 181) which made determinations on liability and directed further steps.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its Rules, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.
Reconsideration request denied for failing to address required procedural factors.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing his application.
The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant's submissions failed to address any of the required factors for reconsideration set out in Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Tribunal limits applicant's attempt to expand human rights complaint but allows respondents' amended response.
In a transitional human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the parties raised preliminary disputes regarding the scope of the pleadings.
The respondents argued the applicant improperly attempted to expand the complaint to include allegations of a poisoned work environment and mistreatment causing his disability.
The applicant argued the respondents improperly amended their response to allege the termination decision was made months prior to the actual termination.
The Tribunal held that Rule 6.3 prevents the applicant from expanding the complaint's subject matter, though the new allegations could be used to respond to the employer's performance allegations.
The Tribunal also held that Rule 7 does not prevent respondents from amending their response.
Request for reconsideration denied as new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not change outcome.
He submitted further evidence claiming it supported his contention that the respondents' request for him to leave the House of Friendship was contrary to the law.
The Tribunal found that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the Case Resolution Conference and was therefore inadmissible.
Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if admitted, the evidence would not have changed the result.
The applicant's central submission was a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings of fact, which did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.
Human rights application dismissed; discharge from eating disorder program not discriminatory and accommodation duty met.
The applicant, who has ADHD, panic and anxiety disorders, and an eating disorder, alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent health centre and its staff after he was discharged from a group-based eating disorder program.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's difficulties in the program or his discharge were related to his disabilities.
The Tribunal concluded that the respondents took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant within the parameters of their group-based program, and dismissed the application.
Discrimination application dismissed; reduction in holiday payout was due to administrative error, not racial discrimination.
The applicant, a shift supervisor, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and/or colour when his employer reduced his final payout for banked public holidays upon his resignation.
The employer maintained the reduction corrected a long-standing administrative error in calculating premium pay, which also affected other supervisors.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence of differential treatment based on Code grounds, concluding the issue arose solely from clerical errors by management.
Human rights application alleging discrimination at a homeless shelter dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on multiple grounds after being asked to leave a homeless shelter operated by the corporate respondent.
The applicant also alleged that a personal respondent made inappropriate comments regarding religion and sexual orientation.
The Tribunal found that the decision to ask the applicant to leave was made in accordance with the shelter's policies and not for any discriminatory reason.
The Tribunal also found no evidence of differential treatment regarding the religious discussions or other interactions.
Tribunal finds employer discriminated by terminating employee partly due to her diabetes and inability to work long hours.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status, as well as reprisal, after her employment at a family-owned golf course was terminated.
The Tribunal found that the respondents were aware of the applicant's diabetes and her inability to work long hours, and that this disability was a factor in her dismissal.
The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to accommodate her disability, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.
The claims regarding family status and reprisal were dismissed.
The hearing was bifurcated, with remedies to be determined at a later date.
Human rights application against Law Society dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no prima facie case.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its employees based on family status and receipt of public assistance.
The complaint arose from the Law Society's handling of her complaint against a real estate lawyer and the denial of her claim against the Lawyers Fund for Client Compensation.
The Tribunal dismissed the application at a Case Resolution Conference, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Law Society's discretionary decisions regarding the Compensation Fund and the complaints process.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that the Law Society's actions were affected by her family status.
Transition applications dismissed in part as the underlying complaints were already dealt with by the Commission.
The applicants filed transition applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after their complaints were dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the complaints were already dealt with and no reconsideration was sought.
The Tribunal found that the complaints were not continued within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code because the applicants failed to request reconsideration within the required time and delayed filing with the Tribunal.
The applications against the City of Toronto and two individual respondents were dismissed, while further submissions were requested regarding the remaining two individual respondents.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant merely disagreed with findings of fact.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing his human rights application.
The applicant did not allege any new facts or evidence, nor any other factor under Rule 25.5 that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
His central submission was a disagreement with the adjudicator's findings of fact.
The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.
Two human rights applications ordered to proceed together for mediation.
The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code against OPSEU and the provincial government.
The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.
The Tribunal also amended the name of the corporate respondent to OPSEU on consent of the parties.
Human rights application regarding special education funding dismissed as the issue was already decided in prior litigation.
The applicant, a young adult with severe autism, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Ministry of Education discriminated against her by failing to provide appropriate special education programs, specifically Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI).
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with in the Wynberg litigation and by the Special Education Tribunal.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the core issue—the failure to provide IBI in schools—was the same question litigated and ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Wynberg.