HRTO 2009

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to defer the Application pending arbitration under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal noted that the interim decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1.

However, the Tribunal treated the request as a renewal of the request to defer based on subsequent facts and directed the applicant to provide a written response.

The applicant, who required dialysis for a kidney condition, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing shift changes and ultimately terminating his employment.

He also alleged the union failed to properly represent him.

The applicant withdrew the application against the union during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding insufficient evidence that shift changes were refused for disability-related reasons.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was based on a series of bona fide misconduct incidents and was not a pretext for disability discrimination.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that found it had contravened the Human Rights Code, arguing the Tribunal misapprehended the scope of the applicant's medical benefits coverage when calculating damages.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions addressing the scope of her medical benefits coverage before determining the reconsideration request.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his employer and union regarding a failure to accommodate his disability.

After settling with the employer, the union requested early dismissal of the application against it, arguing the remedies sought were moot.

The Tribunal also noted an issue regarding whether the union's mere failure to pursue a grievance could constitute discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day Case Resolution conference to hear these preliminary issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day deadline.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence, that the decision conflicted with established case law, and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the alleged new evidence would not have changed the original finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26 and dismissed the request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing.

During the proceedings, the applicant sent voluminous and abusive correspondence to the Tribunal.

The Executive Director requested a written undertaking from the applicant to treat Tribunal staff and parties with respect.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal issued an interim decision adjourning the hearing for one year or until the required undertaking is provided, failing which the application will be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had ongoing grievances and a complaint with the College of Nurses of Ontario arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

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

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed multiple grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a maintenance mechanic, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was terminated following a four-month absence due to a back injury.

Upon returning to work, the applicant was accommodated with light duties and later returned to his regular duties on the night shift.

The respondent raised several performance issues regarding the applicant's ability to repair machinery and his attitude towards coworkers.

The Tribunal found that the performance issues were legitimate and not a pretext for termination based on his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed transitional applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding complaints previously filed with the Commission.

The respondents argued the applications were barred because they were not properly filed and served by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive strict application of its Rules, finding that the applications were made prior to the deadline because the applicant had filed sufficient material with the Tribunal and delivered most of the material to the respondents in May 2009.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for orders regarding deemed acceptance, premature production, and adding new respondents.

The applicant, a Black mail delivery person, was previously found to have been racially discriminated against by a Toronto police officer who stopped and questioned him without cause.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal determined that the Toronto Police Services Board is jointly liable with the Chief of Police for the discriminatory actions of the officer under the Human Rights Code, despite the Board's argument that it only serves a policy function.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in monetary compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and unprovoked physical assault by police.

He subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for assault, battery, and Charter violations, but not for Code infringements.

The Tribunal held that the application was not barred by s. 34(11) of the 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 inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested an order to strike portions of the applicant's pleadings and for further particulars in a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal struck all allegations relating to events prior to July 2005 and after March 2006, as they were outside the scope of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the remaining allegations within 10 days.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing due to changes in the witness list and disclosure issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The applicant requested an order for the production of various financial and operational documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the original documents on the first day of the hearing for inspection, given their claim of financial inability to photocopy and mail them.

The Tribunal also ordered that the applicants' evidence be heard first, followed by the respondents'.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation after being removed as an altar server following complaints by parishioners.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide further submissions explaining how the parishioners' conduct falls within the social areas covered by the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also directed the Diocese and the Bishop to file a complete Response to all issues raised in the application, noting that the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure require complete Responses prior to making preliminary jurisdictional objections.

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 a final extension to October 9, 2009, to file a Response and explain the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited due to her fear of losing her job.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under its Rules of Procedure and determined that the applicant's concerns, while sincere, did not meet the high threshold of urgency required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The request to expedite was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual harassment, and reprisal in employment.

She subsequently filed a Request for Order to add her supervisor, Mau Lao, as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services and the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board.

Finding that the allegations could support a Code violation, that the organizational respondents denied responsibility for the supervisor's conduct, and that there was no apparent prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and one of its adjudicators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the Application related to an adjudication by another statutory body.

Applying the principles from Zaki v. Ontario, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the Application continue to be processed.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the termination of his Mandatory Special Necessities benefits, and by the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) regarding its adjudicative decision upholding the termination.

The SBT and its Acting Chair requested that the application against them be dismissed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held that while the provision of benefits by the Ministry constitutes a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the adjudicative decisions of the SBT do not.

Consequently, the application against the SBT and its Acting Chair was dismissed, but the application against the Ministry was allowed to proceed.