Ruth Carey

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, creed, sex, and age, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The applicant alleged she was denied time off for a religious holiday, subjected to ageist comments, and denied accommodation for pregnancy-related medical appointments and a miscarriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding the applicant to be an unreliable and non-credible witness whose testimony was internally inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by documentary evidence and the testimony of the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code or that the termination was discriminatory.

The applicant, a food service supervisor at a retirement residence, failed to attend work and provided doctor's notes indicating she needed a medical leave due to acute anxiety and depression.

The respondent employer, facing a critical staffing shortage, did not investigate her medical condition or seek further information, but instead deemed her to have resigned.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability and that the respondent breached both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her under section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,760.38 for lost wages and $25,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a financial controller, alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the respondent's owner.

After a decade of working together, the owner developed romantic feelings and asked the applicant for a kiss, which she rejected.

Following the rejection, the owner changed his behaviour, ceasing business-related social activities, decreasing face-to-face interactions, and blaming the applicant for his inability to move on, leading to her resignation.

The Tribunal found the request for a kiss breached s. 7(3)(a) of the Human Rights Code and the subsequent behaviour constituted reprisal under s. 7(3)(b).

The allegation of sexual harassment under s. 7(2) was dismissed.

The applicant was awarded $28,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $50,219 for lost earnings.

The applicant, who has ADHD, alleged that the Law School Admission Council discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability during the LSAT and by disciplining him for misconduct.

The applicant had requested extra time, a quiet room, and earplugs, but failed to provide a comprehensive achievement battery required by the respondent's guidelines before the strict deadline.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach the procedural duty to accommodate, as its requests for information were reasonable.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the substantive duty to accommodate, concluding that the applicant failed to reasonably cooperate in the accommodation process.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the discipline imposed for the applicant's disruptive behaviour during the test did not constitute discrimination.

The respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it breached the Human Rights Code and awarding the applicant lost wages.

The respondent argued the lost wages exceeded the applicant's entitlement under her employment contract and that the Tribunal failed to credit a negative balance in her commission draw account.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the Code prevails over private employment contracts and that there was insufficient evidence to calculate the applicant's lost commission earnings.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant relied on all four grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, including new evidence regarding his net worth calculations.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained earlier and would not have changed the outcome.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding lack of notice, conflict with jurisprudence, and public interest.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that found his age discrimination and reprisal claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to present new facts or evidence, and did not demonstrate that the interim decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, family status, and age, as well as reprisal, following his suspension and the laying of disciplinary charges against him under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to evidence connecting the respondents' actions—including the laying of charges, denial of short-term disability benefits, a resolution meeting, and a firearms seizure—to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment at a coffee shop because of her pregnancy, relying on text messages from a co-worker stating the owner felt she could not do the job as she got bigger.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner who made the termination decision was unaware of the applicant's pregnancy and dismissed her for performance reasons.

The Tribunal further held that even if the co-worker's false text messages constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for an employee's harassment under section 46.3(1).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and marital status regarding the care her mother received at a long-term care facility and her own treatment by the facility and the Ministry.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of her mother without consent.

Regarding her own treatment, the applicant admitted she was relying on assumptions and beliefs rather than factual evidence linking the treatment to the protected grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal in employment by the personal respondent, who operated a cleaning company.

The parties had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship while the applicant worked as a cleaner.

After the personal relationship ended, the personal respondent closely monitored the applicant's work and insisted she sign a subcontracting agreement, leading to the end of their business relationship.

The Tribunal found that while an employment relationship existed, the personal respondent's actions were motivated by his suspicion that the applicant was attempting to take over his cleaning contract, rather than by her rejection of his advances.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing by his neighbours and the regional police service.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success, particularly regarding whether section 2(2) of the Code applies to neighbours in semi-attached homes.

The applicant's witness filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to quash a summons to appear at the hearing, citing non-refundable travel plans.

The applicant consented to the witness attending at an alternate date but opposed removing her from the witness list.

The respondent did not oppose quashing the summons but objected to additional hearing days.

The Tribunal granted the request, quashed the summons for the scheduled dates, and deferred the issue of additional hearing days until the conclusion of the applicant's case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services after another customer directed a racial slur at him in a City of Toronto facility, and security personnel allegedly failed to respond appropriately.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the other customer as a respondent because the Code does not cover interactions between customers that are unconnected to the delivery of a service.

The Tribunal declined to remove the City of Toronto as a respondent, finding it premature to dismiss allegations that the City failed to respond reasonably to complaints on its premises.

The Tribunal also confirmed that the Toronto Police Services Board, rather than the Chief of Police, is the proper respondent for allegations involving the actions of its security personnel.

The applicant, a female sales executive, was excluded from a company-sponsored customer appreciation event ("Men's Day") because of her sex.

After she complained to management about the exclusionary nature of the event, her supervisor ceased one-on-one meetings with her, excluded her from other meetings, and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal found that the exclusion from the event constituted discrimination on the basis of sex under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, as it adversely impacted her ability to build client relationships compared to her male peers.

The Tribunal also found that the termination and other exclusionary actions constituted a reprisal under s. 8 of the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages and $150 for the value of the event.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with the authority to resolve them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual assault and harassment by the owner of the respondent dental practice.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of related criminal charges against the owner.

The Tribunal found that the criminal proceedings pre-dated the application and stemmed from the same facts, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of time to file amended witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, as the applicant had six months to prepare.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time to file amended witness statements, as the applicant received the Case Assessment Direction late.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of hearing materials.

Having received no communication or materials from the applicant by the specified deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding accommodation and subsequent termination.

The intervenor union had also filed grievances on the applicant's behalf, one of which proceeded to arbitration and was currently subject to a judicial review application.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, considered whether to defer the application under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code.

Given the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance process, and with the consent of the applicant, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.