HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondents from the application.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the individual respondents were acting within the course of their employment, the organizational respondent assumed responsibility for their conduct, and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents as parties.

The employer filed an application alleging that the employee breached a settlement agreement by failing to complete a medical assessment.

The settlement required the employer to select a medical specialist in collaboration with the employee's doctor to assess her accommodation request.

The employee attended the appointment but the specialist terminated the evaluation after she asked questions about who would receive the report.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to collaborate with the employee's doctor and that the employee was willing to proceed with the evaluation.

The application was dismissed as the employer failed to prove a breach of the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to file written submissions identifying the personal characteristics under section 5 of the Human Rights Code at issue in his application.

The applicant failed to respond or provide the required submissions.

As the application did not identify any ground of discrimination or basis for a Code violation, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to deal with general allegations of unfairness.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested that his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances, be allowed to proceed.

He argued that the grievances were denied at Step 2 and it would be months before knowing if the union would proceed to arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no indication that the grievances had concluded, and maintained the deferral.

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association Occasional Teachers – Halton Elementary Unit requested to intervene in a human rights application filed by a member alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents supported the request, and the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by bargaining unit members.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of record of offences after being disciplined for alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege facts falling within the Code's definition of 'record of offences' (a pardoned federal conviction or a provincial offence).

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, arguing the matter should be deferred pending an ongoing arbitration and that the alleged reprisal did not involve enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not appear to allege a violation of the Code and requested written submissions from the parties on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application and production of documents.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the independent medical examinations they conducted were services provided to the employer and union, not the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside a protected social area.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request for production of the applicant's previous complaints and concurrent applications against her employer and union, as they were relevant to potential dismissal or deferral under sections 53(8) and 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and reprisal.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be barred by s. 53(8) of the Code, which prohibits a new application if the subject-matter is the same as a complaint filed with the Commission.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by s. 53(8).

The applicant, a university student with a disability, alleged discrimination in services when the university denied her petition to retroactively drop a course without academic penalty.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference but submitted written materials, which the Tribunal accepted as a request to determine the application in writing.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a documented disability, she failed to provide medical evidence establishing a connection between her disability and her inability to withdraw from the course by the deadline or to file her petition within the required one-year period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment by her landlord and other tenants on the basis of disability, creed, age, and receipt of public assistance.

She claimed the landlord failed to maintain her unit, made derogatory remarks to a repair person, and failed to address harassment by a neighbour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no connection between the maintenance issues and Code grounds, and concluding that the other allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The respondents requested a stay and suspension of the human rights application in light of an Initial Order granted to the corporate respondent under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the application clearly fell within the scope of the proceedings stayed and suspended by the Superior Court's order.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the application stayed and suspended until the expiration of the CCAA stay period, subject to any motion the applicant might bring to lift the stay.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after she was not hired for a Garden Coordinator position by the respondent student council.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a standard practice of closing job applications at 2:00 p.m. during summer hours.

The applicant's first email application, sent before the deadline, was not received by the respondent, likely due to a technical issue or spam filter.

The only application received from the applicant arrived after 8:00 p.m.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not considered for the position because her application was late, not for any discriminatory reason, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He argued that the respondent provided fake evidence and inconsistent testimony, and that the Tribunal should not have believed the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions did not meet any of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the material presented was already part of the record and considered in the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that the store manager violated the Human Rights Code by asking the applicant during her job interview if she planned to have a family, and by creating an unwelcoming work environment after learning of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for lost income, finding she voluntarily chose not to return to work after her maternity leave.

The corporate respondent and the store manager were ordered to pay $3,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The application against the co-president was dismissed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed various procedural requests from the parties.

The Tribunal directed the Ontario Human Rights Commission to produce a statement of facts regarding the applicant's previous complaint.

The Tribunal also set new timelines for the respondents to file submissions on preliminary issues, including delay, jurisdiction, and whether the substance of the application was dealt with in another proceeding, and for the applicant to file reply submissions.

The applicant was directed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings if he wished to amend his application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the owner of the respondent catering company.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceedings and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the owner's inappropriate sexual comments and repeated invitations to join him in the shower constituted sexual harassment and solicitation in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied claims for lost wages and an apology.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator who was accused of bias decided the recusal motion, and because the adjudicator had asked counsel to refrain from joking during a conference call.

The respondents also alleged the Tribunal failed to apply a specific Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it is standard practice for an adjudicator sitting alone to decide their own recusal motion, that asking counsel to maintain decorum does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual harassment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the respondents requested an adjournment because the counsel with carriage of the matter left their firm, and the only other qualified lawyer had scheduling conflicts.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the departure of counsel constituted extraordinary circumstances and noting the respondents provided numerous alternative dates.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

Two of the respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding parties to file a Response within 15 days of receiving the decision, along with an explanation for their delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so could result in the matter proceeding without further notice to them, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.