Jim Dimovski

The applicant, a store manager, alleged she was harassed and subsequently terminated by her employer due to her disability after taking medically authorized leaves of absence.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the harassment allegations, noting the employer's conduct during her leave was not vexatious.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the employer's decision to terminate the applicant was based, in part, on the perception that her medical absences would recur and negatively impact store operations.

The Tribunal awarded $6,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with eight weeks of lost wages.

The applicant, a door-to-door salesperson, alleged that her branch manager subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

She complained to the corporate respondent's general manager, who failed to investigate or take appropriate action, leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent infringed the applicant's rights under the Human Rights Code and that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable.

The corporate respondent was also found liable for its unreasonable failure to investigate the complaints.

The Tribunal awarded $18,000 jointly and severally for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus an additional $5,000 against the corporate respondent for its failure to investigate.

The claim for lost income was dismissed due to a failure to mitigate.

Following a finding that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of ethnic origin and race, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $8,750 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the seriousness of the discriminatory comments and the termination.

The Tribunal also awarded $4,427 for lost wages, finding that the applicant failed to fully mitigate her damages as her job search was not extensive or comprehensive enough beyond the year of her termination.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original decision found that the substance of her applications had been appropriately dealt with through grievance settlements signed in 2006 and 2008.

The applicant argued that the grievance proceedings did not properly address her human rights allegations, that she signed the settlements under duress, and that the adjudicator failed to consider a medical report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case, that the duress argument had already been addressed, and that the medical report had been admitted but was not determinative.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of family status and multiple disabilities, failed to accommodate him, and ultimately terminated his employment due to his disabilities.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he could not adapt to a modernized work environment and due to concerns about his work ethic and integrity.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was treated differently due to his family status or disabilities, nor that the employer failed to accommodate any medically supported restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on legitimate performance and integrity concerns, not on any Code-protected ground, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a member and volunteer at a psychological rehabilitation centre, alleged discrimination and harassment on multiple grounds including race, disability, and sex.

The Tribunal dismissed claims related to receipt of public assistance, record of offences, and breach of settlement for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also found that a 10-year delay in complaining about a missed conference opportunity was not incurred in good faith.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to establish that any of the alleged unfair treatment or comments were related to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged he was subjected to workplace harassment and terminated on the basis of his disability (ADD/depression) by his employer and supervisors.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies.

The Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's conduct and the applicant's subsequent termination were related to the applicant's poor work ethic, attitude, and insubordination, rather than any disability or perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to differential treatment and harassment in the course of his employment on the basis of his place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry, and that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and that there was no evidence to support his allegations of discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal also found that the respondents were unaware of the human rights complaint until after the applicant's termination, which was due to performance issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an adjudicator at the Landlord and Tenant Board failed to accommodate her hearing loss during a proceeding.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's actions, including the management of the proceeding and decisions regarding cross-examination, fell within his adjudicative function.

As such, the adjudicator and the institutional respondents were protected by adjudicative immunity, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who is of Portuguese descent, alleged she was subjected to workplace harassment and discriminatory termination by her employer and lead-hand.

The personal respondent repeatedly referred to the applicant as 'Pork Chop' and made derogatory comments about her accent.

The Tribunal found the personal respondent's testimony lacked credibility and concluded she engaged in a course of vexatious conduct based on the applicant's ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held the corporate respondent vicariously liable for the harassment and found that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment was tainted by the personal respondent's discriminatory attitude.

The matter was bifurcated, with remedies to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex when her employment as a Rehabilitation Assistant was terminated shortly after she informed her employer of her pregnancy.

The respondents maintained she was terminated due to ongoing performance issues, specifically her inability to follow client treatment plans and foster client independence despite repeated coaching.

The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence and testimony supported the respondents' position that the termination was based on performance concerns that predated the pregnancy announcement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, an orthopaedic surgeon, discriminated against her on the basis of disability (HIV and Hepatitis C) by refusing to perform knee replacement surgery and failing to conduct a proper physical examination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the CPSO did not appropriately deal with the human rights issues.

On the merits, the Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, accepting the respondent's evidence that the applicant was not a candidate for surgery due to her knee condition, not her HIV or Hepatitis C status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process that resulted in Minutes of Settlement in 2006 and 2008.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process and subsequent settlements constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The applications were dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant, a welder who self-identifies as Black, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race and/or colour by denying him overtime, withholding wage increases, and ultimately laying him off.

The respondent maintained that the lay-off was due to business considerations and that the applicant lacked the broad skill set required to be retained over others.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decisions regarding wage increases and lay-offs were based on performance and objective business needs, not race or colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has a disability and acknowledges being an alcoholic, alleged that police officers discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

She claimed they ignored her complaints of seizures, refused her a stretcher, and dragged her to an ambulance in handcuffs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was combative and refused treatment, and that the officers' decision to apprehend and handcuff her was based on safety concerns rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by the spouse of a client and that her employer failed to properly train her or respond to her complaints, leading to her resignation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding it had provided adequate training and responded appropriately and in a timely manner once notified.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the client's spouse, concluding that although his conduct constituted sexual solicitation, he did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Code as he was not an employer, agent, or person in a position to confer or deny a benefit to the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights complaint against the respondent police service regarding his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant submitted new medical and non-medical evidence and alleged procedural unfairness during the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not have changed the outcome, and that the applicant was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex when she was not acclaimed as President of her Union Local after the incumbent withdrew his candidacy and suspended the election.

The Tribunal found that the election was suspended due to significant membership objections regarding improper notice, not because of the applicant's sex.

The application was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, claiming she was prevented from returning to her pre-maternity leave position and subsequently constructively dismissed when her hours and pay were reduced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily negotiated a new part-time arrangement upon her return from maternity leave, rather than being denied her previous full-time role.

Furthermore, the subsequent reduction in her hours and pay was driven by legitimate business slowdowns affecting the dental practice, not by discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status regarding her termination.

She had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same factual circumstances, alleging her termination was due to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application because the civil proceeding sought remedies for an alleged Code infringement arising from the same facts, even though the Code was not explicitly pleaded in the civil action.

The application was dismissed.