HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not indicate how the circumstances fell within the protected area.

The applicant responded that he initiated the complaint to see if the respondent would apologize, intending to use him as a witness in another complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the applicant failed to identify any basis for a Code violation.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a required written undertaking regarding appropriate conduct and failed to comply with a publication ban.

The Tribunal cancelled the upcoming hearing and set a schedule for the parties to provide written submissions on the requests to dismiss.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by an internal investigation and grievance procedure.

The Tribunal held that an internal investigation is not a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1, and because the union did not pursue the grievance to arbitration, the grievance procedure did not appropriately deal with the substance.

The Tribunal removed all personal respondents except one, and directed a hearing on preliminary issues of delay and whether the union application disclosed a Code breach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance based on the same facts.

Neither the respondent nor the union made submissions opposing the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a probationary financial adviser, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability.

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to the applicant's failure to meet performance expectations, particularly in sales.

The Tribunal found that the employer was unaware of the applicant's medical difficulties prior to his taking leave and that the decision to replace him had already been made.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on performance issues and that disability was not a factor.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the transitional application, arguing it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had emailed the application on June 26, 2009, but submitted a revised version on June 30, 2009, after 5:00 p.m.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its procedural rules regarding delivery and filing, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three individual respondents.

Two respondents filed responses, but the third did not.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to correct the spelling of one respondent's name.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondent to file a response by a final deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

The applicant sought to file a human rights application alleging reprisal without completing a supplemental form or identifying a social area of discrimination in section 6 of the application form.

Relying on previous Tribunal jurisprudence, the adjudicator held that given the nature of the reprisal allegations, the applicant was not required to complete section 6 or a supplemental form, provided she answered specific questions regarding to whom she complained and whether there was an investigation.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that the respondent School Board provide contact information for 17 potential witnesses, primarily students, parents, and teachers.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the School Board to provide the last known contact information for the identified individuals or provide an explanation as to why the information could not be produced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, having previously commenced a civil action against the respondents arising from the same factual context.

The Tribunal held that the application was not barred by s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and reprisal, more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued she was waiting for the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint and a labour arbitration before filing.

The Tribunal found this was not a good faith reason for delay, as she could have filed a timely application while pursuing other proceedings.

The application was dismissed against all respondents except the labour arbitrator.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the doctrine of judicial immunity protects the arbitrator from the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add the president of the respondent union as a personal respondent and requested further particulars from the union.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the president, finding his actions bound the union and personal liability was unlikely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request for particulars as premature, noting that the Tribunal Rules provide for statements of additional facts if mediation is unsuccessful.

The applicant, an Operational Manager, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he was denied a performance award because he did not meet the 12-week active work eligibility requirement due to a WSIB leave.

The applicant argued that the policy was discriminatory because leaves mandated by the Employment Standards Act (such as pregnancy and parental leaves) were counted towards the eligibility period.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the performance award was a compensation benefit tied to work performed.

The Tribunal held that following the statutory requirements of the Employment Standards Act to count certain leaves does not make the failure to count WSIB leaves discriminatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of colour, race, ethnic origin, place of origin, and disability.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance alleging breaches of the collective agreement and termination without just cause, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the overlapping factual matters and the advanced stage of the arbitration favoured deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding by-law enforcement and property issues.

The respondent Town had commenced a concurrent civil proceeding against the applicant regarding site alteration, to which the applicant filed a counterclaim alleging unequal treatment and harassment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the civil proceeding.

Finding that the civil proceeding involved the same central facts, potential duplication of expert evidence, and similar claims for damages, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondents filed a request for an order to remove the three individual respondents as parties to the application.

The Tribunal declined to deal with the request at this time, noting it may be renewed when the grievance process is completed and the Tribunal is requested to proceed with the application.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Code, arguing that the applicant had filed an Application for Judicial Review in civil court based on the same facts.

The applicant subsequently abandoned the Application for Judicial Review.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) no longer barred the application and directed the respondents to file a full Response.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a Code violation.

The Tribunal noted the applicant did not identify a protected ground of discrimination or allege facts constituting a reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

Given the applicant is self-represented and has language difficulties, the Tribunal ordered him to provide written submissions clarifying the alleged Code violations before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dealt with requests to amend the subject-matter of his human rights complaint and a request to intervene by his bargaining agent.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted in a biased manner by refusing some amendments and mischaracterizing his arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of central issues, and that disagreement with a decision does not constitute evidence of bias.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that partially upheld his human rights application.

He argued that new witness and medical evidence was available, that the hearing should have been bifurcated, and that reconsideration was necessary in the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence could reasonably have been presented at the original hearing, the procedure followed was not in conflict with established rules, and the public interest in finality outweighed the applicant's arguments.