Naomi Overend

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging disability and sex discrimination be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in a WSIB claim for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal found the WSIB proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed a request to proceed with her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The grievance process concluded with the withdrawal of the grievances.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the matter to be scheduled for mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her partner, alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin by two trial judges, a Crown attorney, and the Canadian Embassy in Paris following his convictions for impaired driving.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The claims against the judges and the Crown attorney were barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity, respectively.

The claim against the Canadian Embassy was dismissed as it falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her physician regarding substandard care and demoralizing comments.

Concurrently, she filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario based on the same factual allegations.

The respondent physician requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application as the College proceeding was ongoing, but ordered a deferral, finding that the significant overlap in issues and potential for inconsistent findings made deferral the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against Federal Express Canada Freight Division.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

As the respondent operates an interprovincial and international delivery business, it falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, a director of the corporate respondent, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the framework from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent, as there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's deemed liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed as a party.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by terminating her employment after she disclosed a breast cancer diagnosis, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $2,640 for wage loss and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the applicant's extreme vulnerability and the callous treatment by her supervisors.

Reinstatement and prospective wage loss were denied because the applicant's position had been eliminated.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent's supervisors to complete human rights training to promote future compliance.

The Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada (SEIU) requested intervenor status in a human rights application, arguing that any remedy ordered could impact other employees in the bargaining unit or the corporate respondent's accommodation policies.

None of the parties opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the SEIU intervenor status, permitting it to participate as an observer on the issue of liability and to take an active role, including cross-examining witnesses and making submissions, on the issue of remedy.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a life-threatening struggle with an armed suspect.

Five weeks later, while suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, he overreacted to an intoxicated patron at a restaurant and engaged in out-of-character behaviour.

The employer investigated the incident as professional misconduct and ultimately terminated his probationary employment, despite receiving medical evidence that his behaviour was caused by PTSD.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by failing to fulfill its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate him.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's reinstatement, awarded $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the employer to develop a comprehensive accommodation policy for police officers with disabilities.

The applicant, a 65-year-old firefighter, was required to retire from his operational position due to mandatory retirement provisions.

He was re-assigned to a non-operational position at a lower base rate of pay, though he received a top-up to his previous base salary for 30 months.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, arguing his top-up should be based on the higher Acting District Chief rate he frequently earned prior to retirement, rather than his base Captain rate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to maintain a worker's previous higher rate of pay when accommodated in a lower-paying position, and that the employer's voluntary top-up based on his permanent classification was not discriminatory.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling during a noise investigation.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application duplicated a concurrent civil action.

The Tribunal denied the dismissal request, finding the application was framed as a breach of services while the civil action alleged constructive dismissal, and sought different remedies.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant's grievance had been settled.

The applicant disputed agreeing to the settlement and filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights proceedings pending the outcome of the Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application against the Commission was filed outside the one-year time limit and the application against the Ombudsman failed to allege any act of discrimination.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay in filing against the Commission.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the Ombudsman did not investigate the applicant's matter did not establish a connection to discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against both respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on marital and family status due to an anti-nepotism policy.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add VW Credit Canada Inc. as a respondent and to amend her application to challenge the constitutional validity of s. 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to add VW Credit Canada Inc., finding no prejudice to the proposed respondent.

The Tribunal held that an amendment was unnecessary for the applicant to seek a specific declaration of constitutional invalidity, provided proper notice is given to the Attorneys General.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding comments made on television broadcasts by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that broadcasting falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that both the regulation and content of television broadcasts are within exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings exist.

As the applicant did not oppose the request, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent doctor during her post-partum medical treatment.

The application was filed more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed she delayed filing due to fear of further reprisal.

The Tribunal found this explanation inconsistent with her actions at the time, which included contacting a lawyer and filing a police complaint.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming she was terminated after taking maternity and parental leave.

She also filed a parallel complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) based on almost identical facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA proceedings.

Finding that the subject matter was substantially the same and that the ESA process would likely conclude first, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondents, stemming from an incident nearly two years prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to fear of being 'black-balled' in the medical community.

The Tribunal found this explanation inconsistent with the applicant's prior conduct of actively complaining to other bodies months before filing.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent employer requested to consolidate three human rights applications filed by three family members (a mother, daughter, and step-father) who were all employed by the respondent and terminated following an incident involving the daughter.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding that the facts and issues were common and interrelated, and that consolidation would avoid inconvenience, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.