HRTO 2009

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to intervene in an application alleging racial profiling by police.

The respondents had filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters relating to arrests or detentions under the Criminal Code.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene on the discreet legal issue of jurisdiction, finding its participation would be useful and would not unduly lengthen the proceedings.

A schedule for written submissions on the jurisdictional issue was established.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated because of a disability, sought production of various documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the applicant's own performance appraisals and related meeting minutes, finding them relevant.

However, the Tribunal denied the requests for CSI reports, sales records, and performance appraisals of other salespersons, as the respondents did not allege sales performance was the reason for termination.

A request for lease documentation was also denied for lack of explained relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on his place of origin, arising from his interaction with a police constable during a neighbour dispute.

The constable investigated the dispute, discovered an outstanding warrant, and subsequently arrested and charged the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the constable had reasonable grounds for his actions and that there was no evidence connecting the police conduct, the timing of the arrest, or the laying of charges to the applicant's place of origin.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to add parties as respondents to the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under Rule 25.1, only final decisions may be reconsidered.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application against certain respondents, including the Waterloo District Catholic School Board and several individuals.

The remaining respondent, the Ministry of Education, had not filed a response.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against the specified respondents and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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 participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.

These applications were among ten filed by the applicant raising similar facts and issues.

The Tribunal had previously deferred other related applications pending the resolution of preliminary issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing he intended to seek judicial review of a prior interim decision.

The Tribunal found that a stay is not automatic upon commencing judicial review and concluded it was just, fair, and expeditious to defer these applications pending the resolution of the preliminary issues in the related transitional applications.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing grievance arbitration based on related facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplicative factual and legal findings, as the issues in the application were closely related to those in the grievance and a previously deferred application.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action in the Superior Court of Justice claiming damages for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches arising from the same events.

The applicant consented to the application being struck.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences, claiming she was falsely accused of drinking alcohol at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the allegations fell within the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the 'record of offences' ground as no facts supported a conviction or pardon.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed on the ground of 'disability', finding that allegations of mistreatment based on perceived alcoholism may fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and age after being escorted out of the respondent's offices by security during a dispute over his pension.

The organizational respondent requested an order to remove the personal respondent, an employee involved in the incident, from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was acting in the course of his employment, the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to recent ill health that prevented her from meeting with counsel.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ill health constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, noting that neither party had yet complied with their pre-hearing filing obligations.

The adjournment was granted.

The applicant was directed by an interim decision to advise the Tribunal of his intent to withdraw or proceed with the application.

Instead of indicating an intent to proceed, the applicant sent a diatribe against the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

After developing an undiagnosed illness that caused seizures and exhaustion, the applicant was directed by her employer to take a leave of absence.

When she returned to work after finding effective medication, the employer disabled her computer and sent a letter directing her not to return until she was completely free of the illness.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated due to her disability in violation of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $71,623.89 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisals by the respondent school board.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend a previous interim decision and his request for an interim remedy to be reinstated to paid leave, finding insufficient evidence to justify the extraordinary relief.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application as frivolous or vexatious.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain arguably relevant documents, including applicable policies and personal information regarding the applicant, while denying production of other employees' personal information.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, along with a request to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and allowed the application to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances justifying priority over other matters.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age in employment, along with a request to expedite the proceedings due to ongoing stress from the employer's requests for medical information.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or significant harm that would result if the request was denied, as she remained employed and the issues could be addressed in the ordinary course.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to consider early dismissal and the applicant's reliance on the record of offences ground.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a Case Resolution Conference because he was unable to read the respondent's materials, which were provided in an electronic format.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that he has a disability that makes it difficult to read electronic documents.

Although the applicant had not previously requested accommodation through the formal process, he had notified the respondent and the Tribunal a week prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and just in the circumstances, and directed that all future correspondence and disclosures be provided to the applicant in hard copy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, and included a copy of a signed release.

The respondent filed a Request for Early Dismissal on the basis of the release.

The applicant submitted that the release was signed under extreme personal duress and requested to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the signed release.