HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being dismissed for failing to report to a modified work position.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB appeals regarding the suitability of the modified work and loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the WSIB proceedings were at an early stage and could not address all Code issues or remedies.

The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status, dismissed the applicant's premature request for document production, and granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status and age.

The Notice of Application mailed to the individual respondent was returned as undelivered.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide a current or most recent address for the individual respondent to enable delivery of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent retail store.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and provided a final deadline of February 20, 2009, to file a Response before proceeding without their participation.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, and requested that the proceedings be expedited.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no particular indications of urgency that would justify departing from the regular process.

The Tribunal also requested written submissions from the parties and the union on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of an ongoing grievance based on the same facts.

The individual respondents, supported by the corporate respondent school board, requested to be removed as parties to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination on the grounds of race and disability.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the individuals should be held personally accountable.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had assumed liability for the employees' conduct, was in the best position to remedy the alleged systemic discrimination, and that removing the individuals would not prejudice the complainant's right to a full hearing or the availability of remedies.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in her employment with Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events occurred in Quebec and the respondent is a federal government department.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over matters falling under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, CIBC Visa Care Contact Centre, and an individual respondent.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because banks are federally regulated.

The applicant contended that the Visa Care Contact Centre was a separate entity not subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the evidence, including a Canada Labour Board certification and a collective agreement referencing federal legislation, clearly established that the corporate respondent was federally regulated.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application on the basis that the applicant had participated in a voluntary resignation program, received compensation, and signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the release out of desperation because her long-term disability benefits were ending and the respondent had failed to accommodate her with a full-time position.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence at this early stage to conclude that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as the circumstances surrounding the release were intertwined with the duty to accommodate allegations.

The request for early dismissal was denied and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The respondents in a human rights application brought preliminary requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the corporate respondent's request to release the applicant's medical documentation from its Employee Health Services Division to its legal department, noting the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal refused the respondents' request to order the applicant to immediately provide detailed particulars and documents, deferring the issue of compliance with disclosure rules to the Case Resolution Conference.

Other preliminary issues regarding timeliness and a deceased respondent were also deferred.

The complainant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour by failing to refer him to jobs and showing favouritism towards workers of Portuguese descent.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) in a duty of fair referral complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, as the OLRB had considered whether the union's actions were discriminatory and found no evidence of favouritism based on race or ethnicity.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the Corporation of the City of Elliot Lake pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

A corrigendum was subsequently issued to correct a typographical error in the file number on the cover page.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.