Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability after she returned from a medical leave.

The respondent maintained that the termination was solely due to a condition in the share and asset purchase agreement for the sale of the business, which required all but two employees to be terminated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her disability was a factor in the termination, accepting the respondent's evidence that the purchaser's demand was the sole reason for her dismissal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father, acting as litigation guardian for his two children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them in the provision of educational services.

The father alleged that the school board excluded the children from school and summer programs, placed them in a special education class against his wishes, and failed to meet their educational needs through inadequate Individual Education Plans.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding that the school board had accommodated the children appropriately and provided meaningful access to education.

The Tribunal noted that the school board had made significant efforts to work with the father and accommodate his numerous requests, and that the children were thriving in their educational placements.

The applicant, an access parent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, mental health, and other grounds against his child's doctor (SM Medical Centre), the Toronto Health Unit, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

He alleged the doctor improperly denied his child a hepatitis B vaccine and required him to prove his identity to access medical records, that the health unit's vaccination policies created barriers, and that the College's policies and investigation of his complaint were discriminatory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer an upcoming summary hearing until his appeal in another proceeding was complete, and objected to the hearing being conducted by teleconference.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting it had previously decided not to defer the application and the pending appeal did not change that determination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the objection to the teleconference format, as the applicant provided no valid reason for his opposition.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability by providing inferior customer service and making calculation errors regarding his disability benefits, compared to the service provided for his other financial products.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the different financial products were not comparable services and that there was no evidence linking the alleged poor service to the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a response noting a concurrent civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a 47-year-old member of the Canadian Armed Forces, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being denied the opportunity to consider housing in a community restricted to individuals aged 50 and over.

During the hearing, it became apparent the applicant lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate disadvantage.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application.

The respondents opposed the withdrawal, seeking a merits decision to insulate their housing project from future claims.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal, noting it would not hold a public interest hearing solely to provide the respondents with a broad declaration, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize her Application, which alleged discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations of sexual assault constituted an exceptional situation warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The applicant's request to amend the monetary remedy sought was deferred to the adjudicator assigned to the merits hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his application to include new allegations of discriminatory comments and text messages regarding his disability, which he claimed to have discovered after filing the initial application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the new allegations were substantial, late, and untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that evidence of untimely allegations may be admissible as background context, and left the determination of whether the new allegations constituted separate, timely incidents of discrimination to the adjudicator hearing the merits.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Office of the Children's Lawyer failed to properly investigate his complaint regarding a clinical investigator's report in a child custody dispute.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant pled no facts linking the investigation to a protected ground.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because there is no service relationship under the Code between the Office of the Children's Lawyer and parents involved in custody litigation.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to address allegations raised by the applicant for the first time at a summary hearing.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it fair to permit the respondent to respond to the newly raised allegations, and allowed the applicant to file an amended Reply.

The applicant, a transgender man with deteriorating health due to ALS, brought an application alleging discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

He requested that the Tribunal anonymize the application to prevent him from being publicly outed, and expedite the proceeding due to his health.

The respondents consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and urgent, and set a timetable for mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age by a police officer who laid a Provincial Offences Act charge against him.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the OIPRD.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the OIPRD decision.

Relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal jurisprudence regarding the different interests at stake in police discipline proceedings versus civil claims, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, noting a potential lack of evidence connecting the alleged adverse treatment to the prohibited grounds.

The applicant, a transgender man, requested that the Tribunal anonymize his application to prevent being 'outed' and facing social isolation.

He also requested to expedite the proceeding due to his deteriorating health from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and recurrent infections.

The respondent consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization request, finding it an exceptional situation where the risk of outing outweighed the open court principle.

The Tribunal also granted the request to expedite, directing that mediation be scheduled promptly.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision was based on incorrect information and that the adjudicator failed to consider certain evidence regarding alleged discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and repair deficiencies, and failed to establish any new determinative evidence or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Ciptapati Winhar Inc. as an organizational respondent.

The applicant alleged that the actions of an individual respondent, who is a director of the corporation, may be deemed to be the actions of the corporation under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

As no respondents objected and the corporation is a proper party if the allegations are true, the Tribunal granted the request and added the corporation as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

After the stay was lifted, the Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should continue to be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, and noted the grievance process was proceeding in an expedited fashion.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex, including sexual harassment.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's factual allegations as true, there was no evidence connecting the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground under the Code.

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