HRTO 2007

The complainant brought several preliminary requests, including adding the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its Director of Legal Services as respondents, inquiring into all allegations from an original settled complaint, and seeking remedies for an alleged abuse of process.

The Tribunal noted that some of these requests had been previously rejected and directed a conference call for the complainant to provide reasons why the Tribunal should entertain them again.

The Tribunal also required the complainant to specify the precise remedies sought for the alleged abuse of process.

The parties were unable to agree on a date for a teleconference hearing ordered by the Tribunal to address preliminary requests regarding a breach of settlement complaint.

Noting the unacceptable delay and acrimony between the parties, the Tribunal invoked section 2 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to set peremptory dates for both the teleconference hearing and the hearing on the merits.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaint without a hearing, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the accommodation of his workplace injury, and that the complaint was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Human Rights Code has primacy and provides concurrent jurisdiction over discrimination issues.

The Tribunal also found that issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply because the WSIB had not issued a final decision on whether the employer could accommodate the complainant, and the parties were not identical.

A request for a stay of proceedings pending judicial review was also denied.

The Commission and the Complainant brought a motion to add Rittal GmbH & Co. KG as a party respondent to a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a hiring decision.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a respondent and found sufficient facts alleged to support a finding that Rittal could be liable for the actions of its directors.

The motion to add Rittal was granted.

The Tribunal also addressed the Respondents' requests for further disclosure from the Complainant, ordering disclosure of information related to the Complainant's consulting services and potential overlapping damages in separate litigation, but denying requests for irrelevant prior employment records.

The Respondents' request to adjourn the hearing was denied.

The complainant, a recent immigrant, was employed by the respondent real estate agent for one week.

During that time, the respondent repeatedly asked her to go out with him to a restaurant or club.

After she refused for the third time, stating she was married, the respondent threatened to fire her if she did not go out with him, and subsequently dismissed her.

The respondent did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual solicitation and reprisal, violating ss. 7(3)(a) and (b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages and $2,630.54 in special damages for lost wages.

The Tribunal declined to award mental anguish damages, finding the complainant's distress did not meet the required threshold.

The Tribunal also ordered public interest remedies, including human rights training and the posting of Code cards, but refused to order the respondent to report future female hires to the Commission or provide the decision to female applicants, finding those requests overly punitive.

The complainant, who is visually impaired, brought a human rights complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for failing to announce all surface transit stops.

Following an interim decision finding the TTC in breach of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal issued final remedies.

The Tribunal ordered the TTC to implement automated stop announcements with a 98% reliability rate, conduct extensive training for staff and management, hold annual public forums on accessibility, and pay $35,000 in damages to the complainant.

The respondents sought to bring a preliminary motion to address alleged deficiencies in the pleadings and disclosure provided by the complainant and the Commission, arguing they could not file their response until these issues were resolved.

The Tribunal found the motion premature, noting that preliminary and procedural objections should generally not be brought prior to a party filing its pleadings and making disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file their response and make disclosure, after which any remaining issues could be addressed at a pre-hearing conference or by motion.

The complainant alleged that her apartment superintendent sexually harassed her and subsequently reprised against her when she rebuffed his advances.

The Tribunal found that the superintendent engaged in a course of vexatious comment and conduct of a sexual nature from July 2000 to November 2001, violating sections 2(1) and 7(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim, finding that the superintendent's later badgering and bullying of the complainant was triggered by an unrelated incident and was not a reprisal for her refusal of his sexual advances.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages and the superintendent was ordered to attend human rights training.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, a sales representative in her real estate office, sexually harassed her through inappropriate touching, sexual jokes, and derogatory comments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in sexual harassment by touching the complainant's buttocks and breast, and by making frequent sexual jokes, violating section 7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The allegation regarding derogatory terms was not proven.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant $10,000 in general damages and $6,000 for mental anguish.

Following a hearing into a human rights complaint, the Commission advised the Tribunal that a subpoenaed witness who failed to attend alleged the Complainant had offered her $2,000 to provide false evidence.

The Commission requested the Tribunal disregard the hearsay evidence related to this witness and proceed to a final determination.

The Tribunal declined, finding the allegations of witness tampering too serious to ignore, as they impacted the Complainant's credibility and the integrity of the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing reconvened to inquire into the allegations.

The complainant, who has bipolar disorder, was hired by the respondent as a senior test analyst.

Shortly after starting work, he disclosed his condition to his supervisor and requested monitoring for symptoms.

Days later, he was summarily dismissed without any assessment of his condition or the possibility of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability by failing to fulfill the procedural dimensions of the duty to accommodate.

The precipitate dismissal triggered a severe manic episode.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages, along with public interest remedies.

The complainant, a female part-time washroom attendant, alleged sex discrimination when the respondent casino promoted a male part-time washroom attendant to a full-time housekeeping position without a competition.

The casino admitted the male employee was hired because of his gender to ensure same-gender cleaning of the men's washrooms.

The Tribunal found this constituted prima facie direct discrimination.

Applying the Meiorin test, the Tribunal rejected the casino's bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) defence, finding the casino failed to investigate alternative approaches to achieve same-gender cleaning without discriminating, such as reassigning existing male staff.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages, 50% of lost wages for the lost opportunity, and ordered the casino to develop an anti-discrimination policy.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainant requested a written hearing for a complaint alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondent had failed to participate in the proceedings despite multiple attempts at service and notice.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and had chosen not to participate.

The request was granted, and the Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed by way of a written hearing, subject to the respondent's right to file objections within a specified timeframe.

The personal respondent, Muhamad Omarbach, applied for costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after the human rights complaint against him was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's decision to amend the pleadings to allege the respondent's personal involvement, without adequate investigation and based solely on a belated identification at mediation, rendered that aspect of the complaint trivial or frivolous.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs, discounting the amount due to the respondent's conduct during the hearing, and ordered the Commission to pay $8,000.

Les intimés ont présenté des motions préliminaires demandant le rejet de la plainte pour abus de procédure en raison des délais et de la conduite de la Commission, ainsi que pour des motifs liés à la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et au droit corporatif.

Ils ont également demandé la divulgation des notes de la médiatrice et de tous les dossiers médicaux du plaignant.

Le Tribunal a rejeté les demandes de rejet de la plainte, concluant que les intimés n'ont pas démontré de préjudice spécifique justifiant un arrêt des procédures et qu'il n'était pas évident et manifeste que la plainte était vouée à l'échec.

Le Tribunal a ordonné la divulgation des dossiers médicaux liés à l'état cardiaque du plaignant, mais a refusé la divulgation des notes de la médiatrice, celles-ci étant protégées par le privilège relatif aux règlements.

The complainant and respondents both wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the merits of the case not be dealt with.

A hearing was convened to address these requests.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint and declined the respondents' request for costs.

The Commission requested to introduce evidence from its investigators via affidavit rather than in-person testimony.

The Tribunal allowed the introduction of an attendance sheet and letters sent by the Commission to the respondents via affidavit.

Letters purportedly written by the respondent were also allowed to be introduced via affidavit to establish receipt, but not for the truth of their contents.

The Tribunal declined to admit an unsigned witness statement prepared by an investigator from notes, as it had not been confirmed by the respondent and its purpose was unclear at this stage of the proceeding.

The respondents in a human rights complaint sought to reschedule an Initial Conference Call and requested early disclosure and copies of correspondence between the Tribunal, the Commission, and the self-represented complainant.

The Tribunal noted that the call had already proceeded because the respondents failed to obtain consent to reschedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for early disclosure and correspondence, noting that disclosure dates were already set and the Tribunal does not engage in ex parte communications.

The Commission was directed to provide the complainant's address for service.

The respondent Crown brought a motion to dismiss the human rights complaint at a preliminary stage, arguing that previous Charter jurisprudence established it was plain and obvious the complaint could not succeed.

The complainant, an international medical graduate, alleged systemic discrimination based on place of origin regarding access to funded medical residency positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Crown's motion, finding that the contextual and purposive analysis under the Human Rights Code might yield a different result than the previous Charter cases, particularly given differences in the alleged grounds and factual context.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complainant's motion for a partial publication ban, as no evidence was provided to justify overriding the open court principle.

The complainant, who is blind, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) discriminated against him and other visually impaired persons by failing to consistently announce all streetcar and bus stops.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the failure to announce all stops constituted a prima facie breach of the Human Rights Code.

The TTC argued that requiring drivers to announce all stops would cause undue hardship due to safety concerns, but the Tribunal rejected this defence, noting the lack of expert evidence and the fact that drivers already announce stops in inclement weather.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requiring the TTC to implement a program to clearly and consistently announce all surface stops within 30 days.