HRTO 2009

The applicant filed applications alleging breach of settlement, discrimination, and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders.

The applicant's request to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest during mediation was dismissed, as there was no evidence counsel acted for the applicant.

The respondent's request for a cease and desist order against the applicant was deferred.

The applicant's request to bar a respondent from participating was dismissed because the respondent properly relied on an exemption to filing a complete response due to a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the applicability of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate his section 34 Application with his Transitional Application, or alternatively, to replace the Transitional Application with the section 34 Application.

The Tribunal denied the request to consolidate because the two applications were at entirely different stages of the Tribunal process, noting that the hearing for the Transitional Application had already commenced.

The Tribunal also denied the request to replace the application, stating there is no mechanism to simply replace a Transitional Application, and advised the applicant on the procedure to withdraw it if he so chooses.

The applicant, an insurance broker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated while she was on short-term disability leave recovering from knee surgery.

The respondents maintained that the termination was the result of a corporate restructuring that began prior to the applicant's leave, driven by the acquisition of a new partner and client base.

The Tribunal found that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment was based on legitimate business reasons and that her disability was not a factor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment arising from an incident at a 'Bus Ball'.

The corporate respondent requested deferral because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts, which were referred to arbitration.

The personal respondent also requested deferral pending the resolution of related criminal charges.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting its normal approach to defer when concurrent legal proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the refusal to permit him to record classes as an accommodation.

He brought a request for an order during proceedings to add six new respondents and for document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to add respondents because the applicant did not indicate how they participated in the discrimination and they were not named in the original complaint.

The request for production was denied as premature because no hearing date had been set.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing a human rights application against a previous employer.

The Tribunal found that the respondents were unaware of the human rights application when they decided to terminate his employment.

The termination was based on the applicant's lack of honesty regarding pending criminal charges and his reasons for requesting time off.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding her efforts to complete her articling.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because of an ongoing 'good character' proceeding before a Law Society Hearing Panel and a prior complaint.

The Tribunal found that the issues and remedies in the two proceedings were different and that the good character proceeding was not expected to proceed in the foreseeable future.

The respondent's request to dismiss or defer the application was denied, and the matter was directed to be listed for a hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

After an unsuccessful mediation, a Case Resolution Conference was scheduled.

The applicant failed to produce required documents, failed to attend the Case Resolution Conference, and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The respondents attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant no longer wished to pursue the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, dismissing the allegations regarding the applicant's inability to successfully bid on other jobs, finding he was physically incapable of performing the essential duties.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations concerning the discriminatory effect of the accommodation agreement on the applicant's seniority rights and benefits, finding a prima facie case was established and requiring a response from the respondent.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding he engaged in harassment and sexual solicitation.

The respondent had previously been deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived his right to participate after failing to file a Response.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding the respondent had no right to notice of the hearing due to his deemed waiver, and failed to provide any details of alleged new facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release as part of a termination agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary teleconference hearing to determine the early dismissal request, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposal.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's former trade union intervenor status for the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after being terminated following a sick day for a migraine.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the allegations did not engage the protected ground of 'record of offences'.

The Tribunal agreed the facts did not support a 'record of offences' claim but found it premature to dismiss the application, as the allegations might relate to disability.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for Order During Proceedings if he wished to amend his application to cite a different ground.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in the provision of services, claiming he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor hockey games.

This application is one of eleven filed by the applicant raising similar facts.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that previous similar applications had been deferred pending the resolution of preliminary issues, and gave the parties 10 days to make submissions on whether this application should also be deferred.

The applicants brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add two individuals as respondents to their human rights applications and to remove two others.

The underlying complaints alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation in accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the new respondents, noting they were not named in the original 2005 complaints and their addition was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the applications.

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

Shortly after filing, his employment was terminated.

He filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his application to include the termination.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it constituted a new complaint and that a parallel grievance arbitration was ongoing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it more efficient than requiring a new application.

The Tribunal declined to add a new personal respondent due to lack of clarity in the request, and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance arbitration.

The respondent sought to dismiss an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because a Grievance Settlement Board decision had already dealt with the substance, and that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under s. 34.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear arguments on these two preliminary issues.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to a scheduling error on its part.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Information Bulletin requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournment requests, and a scheduling error does not meet this threshold.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent company submitted that the application should be stayed pursuant to Orders made by the Québec Superior Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the CCAA Orders had the effect of staying the proceeding and ordered that no further steps be taken for up to one year, subject to further communication from the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and several of its employees on the grounds of disability and age.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that statutory decision-making is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it is not plain and obvious that decision-making falls outside the broad definition of 'services'.

The Tribunal directed a conference call to hear further submissions on jurisdiction, statutory immunity under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, deferred, or that the personal respondent be removed, arguing that an ongoing grievance dealt with the same issues and that no prima facie case was established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case and declined to dismiss the application or remove the personal respondent at this stage.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing grievance process.