HRTO 2008

The applicant filed an application relating to a 2004 job competition.

She had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, it has no jurisdiction to hear an application if the subject matter is the same or substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested to add Respite Services as a respondent party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of police reference checks.

The complainant alleged that the disclosure of mental health apprehensions in reference checks constituted discrimination in services.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complaint focused on systemic policy regarding police services, and adding Respite Services would inappropriately shift the focus to an individualized employment complaint.

The affected police officers requested a stay of a Tribunal order requiring the disclosure of documents relating to other complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against them, pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay.

While acknowledging a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal found the officers would not suffer irreparable harm, as the documents would only be disclosed to the Commission and complainant subject to an implied undertaking, and any privacy concerns could be addressed if the documents were later tendered as evidence.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as it would unduly delay a proceeding that had already been ongoing for four years.

The request for a stay was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had commenced a civil action pleading a Code violation and had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Commission regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal rescinded its Notice of Intent to Defer and ordered the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by sections 34(11) and/or 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin following his dismissal, requested that his application be expedited under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

He cited financial hardship and the need to pay his mortgage.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated truly urgent circumstances requiring a particularly rapid resolution compared to the regular process, as he was not seeking reinstatement and had not shown specific reasons why his financial situation was uniquely devastating compared to other dismissal cases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status after receiving a trespass notice preventing him from entering his son's school premises.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings.

Noting that both parties expressed willingness to mediate, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation date and deferred the request to expedite until after mediation, if necessary.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a written hearing for a complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, as the respondents had failed to participate in the Tribunal's process.

The Tribunal found that sufficient notice had been given to the respondents and granted the request, issuing a Notice of Written Hearing.

The complainant, a bilingual secretary and customer service representative, went on medical leave due to acute situational reaction and depression after discovering a coworker had taken inappropriate photographs of her in the workplace.

When her doctor indicated she would need three to six months off work, the employer terminated her employment, claiming her position was pivotal and they could not operate without her.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.

The employer failed to fulfill its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, as it did not inquire into her medical condition or seriously explore hiring a temporary replacement.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity and $12,169.12 for lost wages.

The complainant, who lives with bipolar disorder, alleged that he was harassed by co-workers based on his disability and perceived sexual orientation.

He reported the harassment to the respondent, a senior manager, who failed to investigate or take corrective action.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by failing to address the complainant's credible allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal awarded $7,000 in general damages but denied special damages due to a lack of medical evidence linking the harassment to the complainant's subsequent inability to work.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and colour by the respondent municipality when he attended City Hall to pick up a response to a freedom of information request.

During a dispute over the contents of the information package, a City employee called security, and a security guard subsequently escorted the complainant from the premises.

The Tribunal found that the complainant was loud, aggressive, and banged his fist on the counter during the interaction.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision to call security was based entirely on the complainant's behaviour and that race was not a factor.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, two transsexual women, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of sex after a plastic surgeon refused to perform cosmetic surgeries on them.

The surgeon, who specialized in genital and breast surgeries for non-transsexual patients, determined he was not qualified to perform the requested procedures on transsexual patients due to anatomical differences and the need for a specialized team approach.

The Tribunal found that while the refusal constituted prima facie discrimination, the respondents established a bona fide justification.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an individual medical professional to obtain significant new qualifications or substantially change their practice, as this would constitute undue hardship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on a neurological illness that resulted in the temporary suspension of her driver's licence.

She requested to expedite the proceedings because her employer set a deadline for her to return to her regular work location or face termination.

Noting that the applicant also filed a union grievance regarding the same matter, the Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the respondents and the union to file submissions on the request to expedite, potential deferral of the application, and intervention.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an extension of time to file a revised hearing brief, citing a busy hearing schedule and the laborious nature of the task.

The respondents consented on the condition of equivalent extensions, but the complainant opposed the request because her counsel was starting a new position and would be unable to assist if the extension were granted.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding that it would cause prejudice to the complainant and noting that the need for revised pleadings arose from the Commission's failure to follow the Rules.

The respondents brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's disclosure and hearing brief did not comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's disclosure, consisting of over 2,000 unorganized pages, and its hearing brief, which relied on references to other documents rather than stating material facts, were deficient.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to re-submit its disclosure in chronological order with an index and to file a new hearing brief that complies with Rule 57.

The Commission requested a written hearing but the evidence indicated it had not served the corporate respondent at its mailing address listed on the Corporation Profile Report, having sent documents to the registered office address instead.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to serve the referral brief and notice of the request for written hearing to the correct mailing address and provide confirmation of delivery.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the request for a written hearing until after the deadline for the corporate respondent to advise if it intends to participate.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment and failure to investigate, arguing that the 58.5-month delay by the Commission and the primary respondent's subsequent medical incapacity to participate constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the primary respondent, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and cognitive impairment, was medically unfit to testify or defend himself.

Given the inordinate delay attributable to the Commission and the resulting actual prejudice, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint against the primary respondent and the related allegation against a witness.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the balance of the complaint regarding the employer's investigation.

The complainant, aged 57, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a tenure-track assistant professor position.

The Tribunal found that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, as the successful candidate was preferred due to superior teaching and current research.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent university and its Dean failed to adequately investigate allegations of age discrimination raised by a dissenting member of the hiring committee, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the complainant's pleadings.

They argued the allegations were untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the complaint.

The Tribunal found that most of the impugned paragraphs formed part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint and did not expand its scope.

The Tribunal struck one portion of a paragraph on consent, declined to strike the rest, but ordered the complainant and the Commission to provide further particulars for five of the paragraphs.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an order for the production of documents from the respondents and an extension of the deadline to file its hearing brief until after the documents were produced.

The Tribunal denied the request to order production prior to the filing of hearing briefs, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exception to the general rule that procedural matters are not determined prior to the filing of hearing briefs and disclosure.

A schedule for filing hearing briefs and production was ordered.

The complainant, a long-haul truck driver, was dismissed by his employer after returning from a medical leave for a heart condition.

The employer claimed the dismissal was necessary because the company's insurance policy might be cancelled and the complainant posed a safety risk.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to prove that the insurance policy was actually at risk of cancellation or that the complainant posed an unacceptable safety risk.

The Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was discriminatory and awarded general damages, moral damages, lost wages, and medical expenses, along with public interest remedies.