Chantal Tie

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the respondents.

The respondents requested to dismiss the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year before the application was filed, arguing they were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the alleged events, which involved a succession of sexual comments, touching, and innuendo culminating in the applicant quitting her job, constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Because the last incident occurred within one year of the filing date, the application was timely and the request to dismiss was denied.

The respondent requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application had been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA proceeding did not address the failure to accommodate allegations.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal of the ESA decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, noting sufficient factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The respondent in a human rights application requested a summary hearing, an adjournment, and bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The Tribunal had previously denied the summary hearing request and reaffirmed that denial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no basis for the respondent's concern regarding witness inconvenience.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing, concluding that it would be more efficient to determine liability first given the contested facts and the anticipated volume of evidence regarding both liability and remedies.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an interim order for the production of various documents from the respondent City of Ottawa and third-party police records.

The Tribunal ordered the third-party Ottawa Police Service to produce witness statements and notes related to the specific incident, as they were arguably relevant and the police consented.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymized copies of all Trespass to Property Notices issued by the respondent over the past 3 to 5 years, finding the request overly broad, speculative, and a fishing expedition.

The scheduled hearing dates were converted to mediation/adjudication due to outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer terminated an accommodation plan, failed to accommodate her pregnancy, and stopped scheduling her for shifts.

The applicant had initially been accommodated by the General Manager by being scheduled to work in the main floor bar area instead of the second-floor dining room to avoid stairs.

When the co-owner returned from maternity leave, she changed the schedule, moving the applicant back to the dining room.

Despite the applicant providing medical confirmation of her need for accommodation, the co-owner refused to schedule her in the bar area, citing unwritten policies and an awkward interaction with patrons from a year and a half prior.

The Tribunal found that the respondents unilaterally withdrew the accommodation plan without establishing undue hardship, failed in their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, and constructively dismissed the applicant by failing to schedule her for shifts.

The Tribunal awarded $4,170.60 for lost wages and tips, and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

La requérante a demandé de modifier sa requête en matière de droits de la personne pour inclure des allégations selon lesquelles son licenciement était discriminatoire.

Les intimés s'y sont opposés, arguant que la demande était hors délai.

Le Tribunal a accueilli la demande de modification, concluant que puisque la requérante avait soulevé la question de son licenciement dans sa réplique déposée plus d'un an auparavant, les intimés n'étaient pas surpris et ne subiraient aucun préjudice.

The applicant filed a request to amend his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application and directed the respondent to file any request to amend its response within 30 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a restaurant and two individuals.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the last known address of one individual respondent who was no longer employed by the restaurant, and seeking particulars from the other individual respondent regarding her conduct.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted both requests, ordering the restaurant to provide the former employee's contact details and ordering the respondents to file an amended response clarifying their narrative and providing the requested particulars.

The applicant, a tenant who self-identifies as a gay man with a disability and receives social assistance, alleged that his landlord discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance when she terminated his tenancy.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found no evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation regarding a comment made by the landlord.

However, the Tribunal found that the landlord's eviction letter, which explicitly cited the applicant's receipt of social assistance as a reason for termination, was discriminatory.

The landlord's claim that she objected to the applicant's alleged dishonesty rather than his source of income was rejected.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the severe impact of the resulting homelessness, along with $1,200 for lost property and moving expenses.

The landlord was also ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated and the respondent reported her to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The respondent requested the reprisal allegation be dismissed in advance of the hearing, arguing it was statutorily obligated to report the termination and protected by immunity under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the statutory immunity applies only to reports made in good faith.

As the applicant alleged the report was made in bad faith, the claim could proceed to a hearing, despite the evidentiary challenges posed by the inadmissibility of the report itself.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application, which the Tribunal granted in a prior interim decision.

The Tribunal subsequently discovered that a response from the respondent City of Kingston had been misplaced and was not considered.

Upon reviewing the misplaced response, which consented to the amendment subject to certain conditions, the Tribunal confirmed its prior order allowing the amendment, while acknowledging the respondent's caveat that it was not admitting the factual allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a manager as a personal respondent to her human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her pregnancy.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, arguing it was a tactical delay and requesting an adjournment.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's alleged conduct was central to the application and that the corporate respondent's recent destruction by fire raised legitimate concerns about its ability to pay any potential remedial order.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to have a witness testify by teleconference and to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The respondent filed an RFOP seeking to adjourn the hearing and an extension of time to file documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for teleconference testimony due to potential credibility issues and settlement privilege concerns.

The request to adjourn was denied as no exceptional circumstances were shown.

The respondent's request for an extension of time to file documents was granted, with any prejudice to be addressed at the hearing.

The request to add a personal respondent was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her manager as a personal respondent and to amend her application to include a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest.

The corporate respondent consented to both requests, and the proposed personal respondent did not file submissions.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent, noting that the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation could support a Code violation and warrant a specific remedy against him.

The request to amend the application to claim interest was also granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to reflect an agreement among the parties regarding the proper subject matter of the dispute.

The original Application contained issues from two previously resolved Applications.

The respondent Kingston Access Services consented to the amendment, and the remaining respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondents to file any amended Response within 21 days.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to add the principal owner of the respondent corporation as an individual respondent and to substantially amend the remedies sought in her human rights application.

The respondent opposed the amendment to remedies, arguing it affected its risk assessment and mediation position.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, finding no prejudice as a hearing date had not yet been set and the Tribunal is not bound by the remedies sought in the application.

The issue of adding the individual respondent was deferred to the parties or the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add a claim for damages for breach of settlement and requested that the hearing be held in her home due to her age and disability.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but objected to the hearing venue.

The applicant subsequently proposed providing her evidence by affidavit and participating by telephone.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application and permitted the applicant to provide evidence by affidavit and participate by teleconference.

The respondents requested an order removing the individual respondent from the human rights application.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that the individual respondent was alleged to have personally engaged in discrimination by failing to accommodate the applicant, rather than merely acting as an instrument of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal concluded it may be appropriate to make an order against him personally if an infringement is found.

The request to remove the individual respondent was dismissed.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the named personal respondent, Russell Mills, as a party to the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant, a tenant with a mobility disability, requested an onsite parking space from his landlord to accommodate his deteriorating condition.

The landlord refused the request, citing a policy of only offering available onsite spaces to new tenants for commercial advantage and to avoid friction among existing tenants.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the landlord breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal ordered the landlord to provide the applicant with an onsite parking space, pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and complete human rights training.