HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences, stemming from his interactions with court administration staff and a prosecutor regarding a Provincial Offences Act prosecution against his son.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the matter fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it was not plain and obvious that all allegations, particularly those relating to clerical functions in the prosecutor's office, were beyond its jurisdiction, and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant, an employee with a disability, alleged that he was subjected to harassment and discrimination by his supervisor regarding starting and stopping times, work assignments, and an absenteeism review.

He also alleged that management failed to appropriately respond to his internal complaints.

The Tribunal found that the discipline and absenteeism review were consistent with plant-wide policies and not related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's internal investigations into the applicant's complaints were appropriate and satisfied its obligations under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex and colour, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal noted that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to consider the early dismissal request and provided directions for the hearing and potential intervenors.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by former classmates, instructors, and landlords.

The Tribunal removed several respondents based on signed settlement documents and consent forms.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to reconsider a previous interim decision and denied his request to order the College to provide mailing addresses for former classmates, finding the allegations against them did not raise an arguable case of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference to hear submissions on whether to order the College to provide the address of a former instructor, whether the allegations against the remaining respondents raise issues under the Code, and whether the application is barred by section 34(11) due to a concurrent civil claim.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a pension plan and three individual respondents regarding his requests to inspect pension records.

The respondents requested that the individual respondents be removed as parties.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions, there was no compelling reason to continue against the individuals, and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the employer and his union, seeking accommodation in a position falling under another union's collective agreement.

The other union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted given its interest in the remedy sought.

The Tribunal also addressed case management issues, ruling that an upcoming hearing would deal solely with preliminary issues raised by the respondents, rather than combining them with the merits of the applications.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to allow time for a legal clinic to be formally retained and to prepare for the hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the hearing had been scheduled for over a month and the underlying complaint was filed in 2005.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances, particularly given that the clinic had not yet been formally retained and provided no timeframe for when it would be prepared to proceed.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's initial letter, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file submissions within 21 days explaining why the application should proceed despite the release and whether he wished to make oral submissions.

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

The applicant cited financial pressures from a lack of income and health benefits, as well as potential medical and emotional harm.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial and emotional harm do not generally constitute urgent circumstances that warrant giving an application priority over other matters.

The respondents requested to strike parts of a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the awarding of training contracts.

The Tribunal found that a prior settlement and release barred the applicant from pursuing claims related to a 2002 contract renewal.

Furthermore, the Tribunal struck the reprisal allegation because the applicant's prior civil action did not raise human rights issues, meaning the alleged reprisal was not for enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The remainder of the application was permitted to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently made several requests for interim orders.

The applicant sought to add the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and an individual as respondents, to order the individual respondent to turn over narcotic prescriptions, to increase the monetary remedy sought to $5 million, and to remove counsel for the individual respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed all requests, finding no allegations supporting a Code violation against the proposed respondents, lacking jurisdiction for the prescription order, finding the requested monetary remedy highly extraordinary, and finding no basis to remove counsel.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested a stay of the Tribunal's decisions finding liability for racial discrimination, pending an application for judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Tribunal noted that its decisions in transitional applications do not have precedential value, mitigating the respondent's concerns about impact on other pending applications.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's claim of pregnancy discrimination.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not appeal the ESA decision.

Pursuant to s. 43(2) of the Code, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to allow the parties to make oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, marital status, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also filed a grievance against her employer and multiple applications against her union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process and the s. 74 and s. 87 applications at the OLRB, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to apply the Human Rights Code and that the OLRB proceedings involved overlapping facts and significant labour relations aspects.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer and union.

The employer filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to refer the application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing it is a federally regulated entity.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred until the outcome of her federal complaint is known.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide submissions on the issue of deferral before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a decision on an earlier transitional application, but did so without seeking submissions from the parties.

The applicant brought this procedural error to the Tribunal's attention.

The Tribunal ordered that it will receive submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred and will make a new decision on the issue.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination in a hiring process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and ignored evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and disagreeing with the adjudicator's factual findings, which does not satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend the scheduled hearing or comply with disclosure obligations.

The applicant argued that other factors existed outweighing the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated submissions that were previously considered and rejected.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by a taxi driver and the corporate dispatch service.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the corporate respondent to produce a master list of all its drivers, their car numbers, and photographs.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overly broad and its relevance unclear, given that the applicant had already identified a specific car number and decided to proceed against the named personal respondent.