Glorie Alfred

The applicants, two students represented by their parents, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the respondent school principal based on ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had raised sufficient allegations, including that the father was stereotyped as volatile and angry, to warrant a full hearing.

The request to dismiss the applications was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on consolidating the two applications.

The applicant, a parent with a stuttering disability, alleged discrimination in services because his children's school did not permit direct email communication with teachers.

The applicant argued that telephone communication was difficult for him and requested email access as an accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the school provided multiple alternative means of communication, including notes, Friday Files, and emailing the principal or office administrator.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his disability-related needs were met by the existing communication methods, and the Code requires accommodation of needs rather than preferences.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Code due to a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that a procedural error occurred because the applicant's reply submissions were not before the adjudicator when the original decision was made.

Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal noted the applicant had filed an Amended Statement of Claim in the civil action that removed Code-based allegations and remedies.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the application should not be dismissed under section 34(11), but ordered it deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action due to overlapping factual issues.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the respondent, a former school principal.

The respondent sought to dismiss allegations pre-dating the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that incidents occurring between 2006 and 2009 were not part of a series of incidents with those occurring within the time limit.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay in filing.

Consequently, allegations pre-dating April 2010 were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a former Cash Receipts Analyst, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, as well as reprisal and harassment, regarding his failure to be short-listed for four job competitions and his subsequent termination.

The Tribunal found that the harassment allegations had already been dismissed in a previous decision.

Regarding the job competitions, the applicant failed to establish that he met the educational and professional requirements for the positions, and provided no evidence that his qualifications were scored differently due to his race or age.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's termination was the result of progressive discipline for insubordination, specifically his repeated refusal to perform core job duties, and was not discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a school principal and a daycare executive director.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants' parents to provide written permission for the principal to access the applicants' Ontario Student Records, failing which the applications against her would be dismissed as an abuse of process; the parents complied before the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the daycare executive director on the basis of delay, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicants failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith.

The respondent school principal requested an order directing the applicants' parents to provide written permission to access and disclose the applicants' Ontario Student Records (OSR) for an upcoming summary hearing.

The applicants' parents agreed only on the condition that other parents and teachers also provide consent.

The Tribunal found the applicants' conditions unhelpful and directed the parents to provide written permission, noting that failure to do so could result in the applications being dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a student diagnosed with ADHD and ODD, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability, and engaged in reprisals, through a series of suspensions and disciplinary actions across four different schools.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of racial discrimination or reprisal.

The Tribunal held that the school board had appropriately considered the applicant's disabilities as mitigating factors when imposing discipline and had implemented numerous accommodations and strategies to assist him academically and behaviourally, thereby fulfilling its duty to accommodate.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal and discrimination regarding his teaching timetable assigned in June 2012, and requested related document production.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new allegations were substantial, occurred two years after the original events, and would broaden the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal also found that allowing the amendment less than two months before the scheduled hearing would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant, a parent with a communication disability, filed a human rights application against the school board alleging discrimination for refusing to allow email as a regular means of communication with teachers.

The applicant brought a request to add the Ministry of Education and the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) as respondents, arguing they were necessary to achieve a public interest remedy regarding a formal email policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations of Code violations against the proposed respondents and concluding their addition would unfairly complicate the proceeding.

ETFO was granted affected person status.

The applicant filed a Request to Reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration raising identical facts and issues.

The applicant alleged the arbitration proceeding was unfair and a reprisal.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance was adjourned pending an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no basis to reactivate the application while the grievance arbitration remained ongoing.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by a school principal and a daycare executive director.

They subsequently filed multiple requests to add a total of 91 additional individual respondents, including police officers, Children's Aid Society workers, and a journalist.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicants failed to provide reasons for adding the individuals, failed to deliver the requests to the proposed respondents, and failed to provide contact information as required by the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The union supported the reactivation, stating that the arbitration was adjourned sine die and it considered the grievances withdrawn.

The respondents opposed, arguing the grievance process was not yet completed.

The Tribunal found that since the arbitration was no longer active and there was no indication it would resume, reactivation was appropriate.

The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents related to a grievance arbitration.

The Application had previously been deferred under section 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of that grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested material was not arguably relevant to the issues in the Application and that there was no reason to order document production while the Application remained deferred.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by the school board and a curriculum leader.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) to remove the curriculum leader as a personal respondent and to dismiss parts of the application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, noting the school board accepted vicarious liability for her actions.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations relating to events in 2004 and 2005 as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations spanning from September 2008 to May 2010 constituted a series of incidents and allowed them to proceed.

A cross-RFOP by the applicant seeking procedural sanctions against the respondent was dismissed.

The applicant, a 64-year-old occasional teacher, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her on the basis of age when she was unsuccessful in five separate job competitions for permanent contract teaching positions.

In each case, the successful candidate was significantly younger and had less teaching experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions, demonstrating that the applicant was either outperformed in the interviews or received a poor reference.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, operating a school for Somali-Canadian students, alleged racial discrimination after the respondent school board refused to renew its commercial lease.

The Board cited the need for the space for its own programs and a history of tenant complaints regarding the applicant's students.

The Tribunal found that the Board's reasons for non-renewal were credible, non-discriminatory, and based on legitimate operational needs and tenant conduct issues.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence linking the Board's decisions to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or place of origin.

The applicant sought to introduce similar fact evidence from other parents and students, and to summons a former respondent, Stephanie Payne, to testify in an ongoing human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the school board.

The Tribunal denied both requests.

It held that the proposed similar fact evidence lacked sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudice to the respondents, as the complaint did not raise systemic issues.

The Tribunal also refused to issue a summons for the former respondent, noting it had previously determined there was no prima facie case of discrimination against her.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against her employer and her union, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, and perceived disability.

The union respondents requested early dismissal of the application against them under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) in a duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the essential nature of the human rights application was raised in the OLRB proceeding and that allowing it to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the union respondents did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination, as the allegations primarily concerned inadequate representation without any credible assertion of differential treatment based on Code grounds.

The application against the union respondents was dismissed.

The personal respondents in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceedings to be removed as parties.

The corporate respondent, the Toronto District School Board, acknowledged that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment and accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that individual remedies were unlikely to be appropriate and that the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedial order.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed from the application.