HRTO 2009

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it challenged adjudicative decisions regarding workers' compensation benefits.

The applicant requested to amend his application to clarify that the respondent's refusal to directly deposit his benefit cheques constituted a denial of a service and a failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss, finding that while some allegations may fall outside its jurisdiction, the direct deposit issue related to a 'service' under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application.

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

A mediation session was scheduled, which the respondents attended but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to schedule new dates and subsequently warned that the application would be deemed abandoned if no response was received.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code, which allow for applications in respect of complaints filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal sought submissions after being advised by the Commission that no such complaint was ever filed.

The applicant conceded there was no record of filing a complaint prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the transitional application, noting this does not affect the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant, an injured worker receiving WSIB benefits, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability and colour in providing vocational rehabilitation services.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' recommendations to terminate the applicant's Labour Market Re-entry plan and deny vacation were justified by his poor attendance, which was not shown to be related to his disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination based on colour or in the respondents' communications with the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code, attempting to abandon a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and no timely request for reconsideration was filed.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the complaint was not 'continued' at the Commission on the day the applicant attempted to abandon it.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that her civil action only raised disability-related claims, while her human rights application included race-based discrimination claims not raised in the civil action.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, holding that section 34(11) applies even if different grounds of discrimination are raised in the two proceedings, to prevent duplication.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that section 43(2) required oral submissions, as the statutory bar deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging workplace reprisal, the respondents requested the exclusion of the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism.

The Tribunal applied the Mohan criteria and excluded the expert evidence, finding that testimony regarding the reluctance of racialized persons to complain and the history of police-minority relations was irrelevant to the reprisal complaint.

Furthermore, evidence regarding police culture and the treatment of complainants was deemed to be within the Tribunal's own expertise and therefore unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police and commission employees regarding a seatbelt ticket.

One respondent could not be served, two failed to respond, and two filed preliminary objections without a complete response.

The Tribunal ordered the Toronto Police Service to accept service or provide contact information for the unserved respondent, ordered the non-responding respondents to file a response within 10 days, and ordered the objecting respondents to file a complete response before their preliminary issues would be considered.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer.

Her union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2936-09, filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The applicant objected to the intervention, while the respondent employer supported it.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee alleging discrimination in employment, and absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervention status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her union regarding a refusal to file a grievance in November 2005.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the application being filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay of almost four years was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer over ten years after his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that pursuing WSIB claims did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay, particularly since the human rights application included allegations of racial discrimination and sought remedies distinct from WSIB benefits.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being the only employee offered an early retirement package during a staff reduction.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on multiple grounds, including failure to disclose a prima facie case, section 45.1 of the Code, and being frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal denied the requests for early dismissal, finding that the prima facie case issue should be raised at a hearing, a negotiated retirement package is not a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, and the frivolous and vexatious provisions are no longer applicable.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application because the applicant had passed away.

The Tribunal noted that upon death, the estate takes over the rights of the deceased.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's representative to advise whether she acts for the estate and to provide confirming documentation, deferring consideration of the respondent's request in the interim.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race.

The respondents filed Requests for Orders during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, delay, and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day telephone conference call to address these preliminary issues and directed the parties on the procedure for making submissions.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response or comply with a previous Tribunal direction to provide contact information for certain individuals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate, directing them to file their Responses within 14 days with an explanation for the delay, and ordering the institutional respondent to provide the requested contact information.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to all parties.

The respondents attended the hearing, but the applicant failed to appear and did not request an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received proper notice and concluded that she had abandoned her application.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the human rights complaint.

The Commission had not been participating in the hearing dates.

As no other parties responded or requested transitional directions, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw and removed it from the title of proceeding.

The applicant, a part-time Registered Practical Nurse, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (asthma).

After calling in sick with symptoms including vomiting and a severe cough, the employer required her to provide a medical note and replaced her for the weekend due to infection control concerns.

The applicant alleged she was harassed for calling in sick.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer was unaware the applicant had asthma and reasonably believed she had a temporary gastrointestinal or respiratory infection.

The Tribunal concluded that any personality clash or harassment experienced was not based on a disability under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently refused to participate in the Tribunal's process or communicate with the Tribunal, citing an intention to seek judicial review of an earlier interim decision.

The Tribunal noted that an application for judicial review does not automatically stay proceedings and that the applicant had not served a Notice of Application.

Given the applicant's clear refusal to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.