HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race and disability, and reprisal, after being barred from the John Howard Society.

The respondents requested summary dismissal, arguing no nexus to a prohibited ground, and sought removal of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations could amount to a Code violation and whether the individual respondents should be removed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities because of race and colour against her bankruptcy trustee.

Because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant provided submissions but failed to explain the delay in filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal by his employer and union.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application more than a year after the last alleged incidents of discrimination.

As the applicant did not demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status following the termination of her employment.

She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship, stress, and difficulty finding new employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency and noting that the applicant had waited almost four months before filing the application.

In an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal previously ordered the Commission to produce Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant claimed he called the mediator to repudiate the settlement after mediation, while the respondents claimed this occurred after they submitted the signed documents.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to immediately produce any records of communications between the applicant and the Commission during the relevant period, ahead of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and requested that the application be expedited due to the effects of being fired.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant had resigned.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances were not so urgent as to warrant giving the application priority over others and dismissed the request to expedite.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming she was dismissed during training because her French language skills were deemed inadequate.

The Tribunal noted that inadequate language skills do not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on why her claim falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with the application.

The applicant alleged that his former landlord discriminated against him in housing and employment on the basis of race, citizenship, creed, and disability.

The applicant claimed the respondent terminated his tenancy, colluded with former landlords, diverted his mail, and used microwave devices to harm him.

The Tribunal found no credible evidence connecting the respondent's actions to any protected Code grounds and dismissed the application.

The respondents in a human rights application brought a preliminary request to remove the personal respondent from the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that preliminary motions are discouraged in transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which are designed to be highly expeditious.

The Tribunal directed that the request be dealt with by the adjudicator at the start of the scheduled hearing.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had already sought to add the same reprisal allegations to an earlier 2008 application.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the 2009 application until it determined whether the reprisal allegations would be heard as part of the 2008 application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a vocational rehabilitation program.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the Government of Canada and its employee, Carol Knowles, regarding the administration of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Program.

The applicant did not file a reply.

The Tribunal concluded that the actions of the federal respondents fell outside provincial jurisdiction and dismissed the application against them.

The respondents requested an order to combine the present human rights application with another application filed by the personal respondent against the applicant's son for alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent in the other application is not involved in the present one, the alleged reprisal is unrelated to the current allegations, and combining them would delay the processing of the current application, which is scheduled for a Case Resolution Conference later in the month.

The applicant, a transgender woman, sought to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination by a women's-only fitness facility.

The respondents requested costs or a monetary award for abuse of process, citing the stigma and expense of defending the claim.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the request for costs, finding it lacked statutory authority to award costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted the requisite rules.

The Tribunal also found no abuse of process by the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an earlier Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim dealt with the same factual circumstances.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA decision did not provide reasons for its findings and did not consider whether the applicant's pregnancy-related accommodation request was a factor in her dismissal.

The ESA process therefore did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling, an unlawful vehicle search, and a taser threat during a traffic stop by unnamed police officers.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested that the application be dismissed against it on a preliminary basis, arguing it is not vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers.

The Tribunal declined to address the liability of the board on a preliminary basis, directing that the application proceed through the regular process.

The Tribunal also provided directions to the applicant on how to request an order for the production of the unnamed officers' identities.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed applications against three municipalities alleging that the failure to call out all stops on municipal transit buses is discriminatory.

At a case conference, the municipalities provided updates on the implementation of automated stop announcement systems.

The Tribunal issued consent orders granting intervenor status to the respective transit unions and setting a schedule for the parties to discuss resolution and potentially engage in Tribunal mediation.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application during a conference call.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities, employment, and contracts on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the prohibited ground of record of offences does not apply to the social area of goods, services and facilities.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a shipper/receiver, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (sciatica).

After presenting a doctor's note outlining work limitations, the respondents sent him home and shortly thereafter terminated his employment, citing a lack of available work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in their procedural duty to accommodate by making a hasty decision to terminate without meaningfully exploring accommodation options.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with 15 weeks of lost wages.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because she would be out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had known of the hearing date for months and failed to provide exceptional circumstances or a timely explanation for the delay in requesting the adjournment.