Application alleging discrimination in handling of short-term disability claim dismissed; employer's medical information requests were reasonable.
The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the employer mishandled her short-term disability claim for a psychological illness.
The Tribunal found that the employer's requests for medical information and authorizations were reasonable and made in good faith to assess the claim and accommodate the applicant.
The Tribunal also found no evidence that the employer interfered with the applicant's long-term disability claim.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as respondent's internet gaming business is federally regulated.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The respondents raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the corporate respondent, which provides a live dealer internet gaming experience, is a federally regulated enterprise engaged in telecommunications.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the corporate respondent's business of providing online gambling services via the internet falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment termination dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a South East Indian man, alleged that his employment was terminated due to subtle discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.
The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he was incapable of performing the job despite extensive training.
The Tribunal found no evidence of differential treatment or racial discrimination, noting that the employer's decision was rational and based on performance issues.
Human rights application alleging discrimination by university instructors based on disability and creed dismissed.
The applicant, a university student with a cognitive disability and hearing impairment, alleged that the university and several instructors discriminated against her on the basis of disability and creed.
She claimed she received lower marks and was expelled from the social work program due to a failure to accommodate her disabilities and because of her religious views on gay marriage.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the applicant's disabilities or creed were connected to her academic performance or the treatment she received from her instructors.
Human rights application alleging disability discrimination by transit employees dismissed; vexatious litigant order denied.
The applicant, who uses a walking stick, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission discriminated against him on the basis of disability during two incidents.
In the first, a streetcar operator asked to inspect his transfer after he was seated.
In the second, a subway guard locked a cab door open, blocking access to the seats opposite the cab, which the applicant wished to use.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the operator had a reasonable basis for the fare inspection and that the subway seating policy did not result in differential treatment, as other seats were readily available.
The respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.
Request for reconsideration of dismissed human rights application denied for failing to meet procedural criteria.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her human rights application.
The applicant argued that unidentified findings of fact were inconsistent with the evidence called at the Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant made no submissions bearing on the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant merely reiterated previous arguments without meeting reconsideration criteria.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as untimely.
The applicant did not provide any new facts, evidence, or submissions addressing the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5, but merely reiterated arguments made at the Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.
Human rights application dismissed; employer's refusal to provide detailed reference was consistent with company policy.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, breach of settlement, and reprisal, claiming his former employer sabotaged his employment prospects by refusing to provide a detailed reference.
At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant relied on double hearsay evidence regarding the reference checks.
The personal respondent testified that he only confirmed the applicant's dates of employment and declined to provide further information in accordance with company policy.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's direct evidence over the applicant's hearsay evidence, found no violation of the Human Rights Code, and dismissed the application.
Reconsideration request denied; conflict of interest allegation based on adjudicator's prior employment found meritless.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his applications.
He argued that the adjudicator was in a conflict of interest because of prior employment as Crown Counsel.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely seeking to re-argue issues from the Case Resolution Conference and that the conflict of interest allegation was entirely without merit, as the adjudicator had not been employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General since 1992.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith reason for late filing.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that a hospital and a doctor discriminated against her based on her Aboriginal ancestry by making stereotypical comments in a discharge summary.
The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the complaint was filed out of time.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the material facts in December 2001 but did not file the complaint until February 2004.
The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that she was medically incapacitated from filing earlier, noting she had pursued other legal and complaint avenues during that time.
Finding no good faith reason for the delay and potential prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed as parties agreed the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that the complaint fell under the federal Canadian Human Rights Act.
The parties agreed that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the applicant took steps to pursue the matter federally.
The Tribunal dismissed the application without making a formal determination on the jurisdictional issue.
Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend scheduled Case Resolution Conference.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received proper notice of the conference.
In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application.
Tribunal rescinded premature order disposing of application after one respondent failed to sign settlement agreement.
The applicant and respondents agreed to settle a human rights application during mediation.
The Tribunal prematurely issued an order finally disposing of the application before receiving the signed Minutes of Settlement.
One of the personal respondents failed to sign the agreement or pay his portion.
The Tribunal rescinded its previous order, confirmed the application was finally disposed of against the two respondents who signed and paid, and allowed the application to proceed against the non-signing respondent and the corporate respondent.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as the underlying decision denying an amendment was not a final decision.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to amend his human rights application to add a new ground of discrimination.
The Tribunal considered whether the decision was a 'final decision' under Rule 25.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the decision did not deprive the applicant of any prospect of a remedy against the respondent and did not dispose of the entirety of the complaint.
Therefore, it was not a final decision and could not be the subject of a reconsideration request.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Application alleging sexual orientation discrimination dismissed; reduction in shifts was due to lack of work.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, claiming her hours were reduced and her employment effectively terminated after her employer learned she was in a same-sex relationship.
The Tribunal found that the reduction in the applicant's shifts was due to a significant decline in available work during the winter months, not her sexual orientation.
The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation of a poisoned work environment, finding that brief co-worker gossip and a friendly conversation with a manager did not constitute a poisoned environment.
Human rights application dismissed for excessive delay not justified by medical evidence of incapacity.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and harassment by his employer and supervisors, more than seven years after the alleged incidents.
The respondents requested early dismissal of the application due to the delay.
The applicant argued the delay was caused by his mental disability and lack of legal representation.
The Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting the applicant's inability to file a complaint during the delay period and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and caused substantial prejudice to the respondents.
Human rights applications by former Justice of the Peace dismissed for delay and abuse of process.
The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race and related grounds.
The first application concerned the failure to progress him to full-time presiding status, and the second concerned the refusal to indemnify his legal costs for defending criminal charges of sexual assault.
The Tribunal dismissed the first application as out of time, noting a delay of over three years without a reasonable explanation.
The Tribunal dismissed the second application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant's claim that the sexual assault charges arose within the course of his employment to be preposterous and without any chance of success.
Tribunal allows late-filed sex discrimination claim due to internal resolution efforts but dismisses unpleaded disability claim.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability.
The respondents raised preliminary issues, seeking to dismiss the application for being out of time and to dismiss the disability claim for lack of pleaded facts.
The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the entire application, finding the applicant had engaged in a good faith attempt to resolve the issues internally before filing.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the disability claim because the complaint contained no facts to support it.
The Tribunal also removed a deceased individual as a respondent on consent.
Human rights application alleging racial harassment and discriminatory termination dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.
The applicant, a Black African woman, alleged she experienced a poisoned work environment due to racial harassment and was terminated while on sick leave.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding racial name-calling and harassment lacked detail and was contradicted by the respondents' evidence.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant was not terminated due to her sick leave, but rather quit because she did not want to work the available evening shifts.
Adjournment of Case Resolution Conference denied despite applicant's representative's scheduling conflict.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because her newly retained representative was unavailable on the second day.
The respondents objected, noting the applicant had ample time to retain a representative.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, emphasizing its mandate for expeditious resolution of transitional applications and noting the conference might conclude in one day.