Anita Lyon

The applicant, a not-for-profit organization serving newcomers from Mainland China, alleged that the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and its officials discriminated against it on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin by reducing and ultimately denying its Newcomer Settlement Program (NSP) funding.

The applicant claimed that a Ministry official from Hong Kong was biased against the applicant because it was operated by individuals from Mainland China.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry conducted a thorough and fair evaluation process and that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandated eligibility criteria for NSP funding.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence connecting the funding decisions to the prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex after police charged him with assault but refused to charge his ex-girlfriend, and the Crown subsequently withdrew private charges against her.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of the Attorney General on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the Barrie Police Services Board, finding it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and the applicant failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and sex regarding a report prepared by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) during a child custody dispute.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis of absolute privilege.

The Tribunal held that the OCL report was created and filed in the course of judicial proceedings, triggering the common law doctrine of absolute privilege.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of a hearing disability, claiming he was not provided with an ASL interpreter at a courthouse hearing in 2007.

The application was filed nearly four years later.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to police surveillance and lack of cooperation from Legal Aid.

The Tribunal found the explanation vague and unreasonable, concluding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and age regarding his interactions with police and the judicial system, including malicious prosecution and delay in destroying fingerprint records.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction given the delay in filing and the lack of identified discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal found that the timely allegations regarding fingerprint destruction had no credible connection to the Code.

For the remaining allegations, which were filed more than a year after the incidents, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and thus the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) and the Government of Ontario discriminated against him by refusing to provide legal services.

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

The Tribunal found that the Government of Ontario could not be held liable because the HRLSC is an independent corporation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the HRLSC's refusal of services was due to a temporary conflict of interest, with no apparent connection to any Code-protected grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

Despite being directed to provide a telephone number where he could be reached, the applicant instead demanded the Tribunal call a Skype number shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal does not conduct hearings via Skype.

As the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to attend or provide a valid telephone number, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and one of its Vice-chairs, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of services during a previous hearing.

The HRTO determined that the actions complained of were adjudicative in nature and therefore protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also found the application to be an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate matters already decided.

The HRTO concluded it could dismiss the application without giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin regarding the denial of funding.

The respondents argued the application was time-barred and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while some earlier funding decisions were time-barred, the allegations pertaining to the termination of funding for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 years were filed in a timely manner or formed part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application was frivolous and vexatious, noting it did not have the express statutory authority to dismiss on that basis under the amended Code, and the application did not constitute an abuse of process.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied, and the Tribunal narrowed the issues for the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a municipal prosecutor and a Justice of the Peace allegedly did not permit her to present her case with her infant son present.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prosecutor's actions were protected by prosecutorial immunity, which extends beyond the core elements of prosecutorial discretion to protect prosecutors from civil liability in the absence of malice.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of documents related to default hearings under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding sections 13, 14, and 18, but found the Commissioner erred in law by concluding that the documents, which were prepared by in-house counsel, lost their solicitor-client privilege once used as guidelines for general application.

The court held the documents were exempt from disclosure under section 19.

The complainant, a probationary employee, was terminated after being absent for three days within her first 29 working days, pursuant to the employer's unwritten attendance policy.

She alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap, claiming her absences were due to an asthmatic reaction to aspirin and the flu.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's allergic reaction was the result of her own reckless negligence in taking unverified medication despite her doctor's warnings.

Furthermore, the Board held that the flu is a commonplace, transitory illness that does not constitute a handicap within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The complaint was deemed trivial and frivolous, and costs were awarded to the respondents on a solicitor-client basis.

The complainant, a waitress, alleged that the respondent restaurant manager sexually harassed her by repeatedly grabbing her, touching her breasts, and making crude sexual remarks.

The Board of Inquiry accepted the complainant's evidence, which was corroborated by two other waitresses, and found that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment in violation of sections 6(2) and 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay $1,500 for lost wages, $2,000 for mental anguish, and $805 in interest, and directed the respondent to post a Human Rights Code card and report future female employee departures to the Commission.