HRTO 2009

The applicant, an older, white, disabled man, alleged that the respondent physician discriminated against him on the basis of race, age, and disability by treating him dismissively, refusing to prescribe requested medication, and terminating his medical care.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of dismissive treatment or that the refusal to prescribe medication was related to any protected Code grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant's medical services were terminated because he was confrontational, loud, and angry, causing a disruption at the clinic.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, former employees of the corporate respondent, filed 20 transitional applications alleging systemic discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and reprisal following a corporate downsizing and the issuance of severance packages.

The applicants requested that the applications be heard together, arguing that the corporate respondent used a ranking system that improperly considered age and participation in an attendance management program.

The respondents opposed the request, citing differences in the applicants' circumstances and grounds of discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, and directed the parties to schedule a case management meeting.

In a human rights application against a school board and two individuals, the applicant requested an order for the disclosure of report cards of other students, teacher performance appraisals, and particulars regarding the training of the school administrators who investigated the complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request for the report cards, finding they were protected by statutory privilege under section 266(2) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide further particulars regarding the training and credentials of the administrators who conducted the internal investigation.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the human rights complaints under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the complainants had commenced a civil action.

The Tribunal found that the individual complainants were barred from participating because they had commenced a civil action seeking an order under s. 46.1.

However, the Tribunal held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission could continue with the complaints as if they were an application made under s. 35 of the Code, seeking public interest remedies.

The personal respondents were removed from the proceeding on consent.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application and a subsequent interim decision to the respondents, but the mail and courier packages were returned marked as 'bad address'.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide current, complete, and accurate contact information for the respondents within 20 days, or to explain why the provided address is believed to be correct, in accordance with Rule 6.6(b).

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against a corporate and a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a response, but the corporate respondent failed to do so despite being served.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to file a response within 15 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to comply may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was subsequently granted a request to amend her application to include a claim of reprisal dismissal.

The respondent Metroland filed an amended response and reiterated its request for an adjournment of the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, directing that the hearing proceed as scheduled.

The applicant sought to add Southwire Canada Company, Gentoma Company, and Gentek Inc. as respondents to his human rights complaint, arguing they were successor corporations to his former employer, Noma Cable Tech Ltd. The Tribunal declined to add Southwire, finding it was a complete stranger to the complaint and had purchased assets months after the applicant's termination.

Regarding Gentoma and Gentek, the Tribunal ordered them to provide affidavits detailing their legal relationships with Noma Cable before deciding whether they should be added.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Commission in 2006, which was subsequently settled along with related grievances in 2007.

In 2008, the Commission advised the applicant that the complaint was resolved.

The applicant then attempted to file an application with the Tribunal under the transition provisions of section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the complaint was no longer continued at the Commission at the time the application was filed, as it had already been resolved by settlement.

The applicants, who are cousins and former co-workers, filed separate human rights applications alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the respondents.

The applicants requested that their applications be consolidated and heard together, that two individual respondents be removed from one application, and that the other application be amended to include a claim of reprisal.

The Tribunal granted all requests, finding common issues of fact and law, no prejudice to the respondents, and no objections raised by the respondents.

The respondents brought a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents argued the substance of the application was the same as a previous duty of fair representation complaint settled at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and a previous complaint dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, it lacked jurisdiction because the subject-matter of the application was substantially the same as the previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the substance of the application was the subject of two previous complaints filed with and dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the current application dealt with the same allegations of disability discrimination, harassment, reprisal, and failure to accommodate as the previous complaints.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code regarding three previous complaints.

The Tribunal found that one complaint was settled and closed in 1999, another was not proven to be filed or continued as of June 30, 2008, and the third was not filed with the Trustee prior to June 30, 2008.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as it did not meet the requirements for a transition application, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1).

The applicant alleged discrimination in goods, services, and contract on the basis of creed, claiming she was denied Self Employment Benefits because her proposed business involved reading tarot cards.

The respondents maintained the denial was because the applicant had previously operated similar businesses, making her ineligible under program guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the decision to deny benefits was based solely on the program's terms and conditions regarding prior similar businesses, not on the applicant's practice of tarot.

The application was dismissed without needing to determine if tarot constitutes a creed under the Code.

The respondent union requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that found it responsible for a poisoned work environment arising from discriminatory comments.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding standing, corporate responsibility, and poisoned environments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision correctly applied established case law and that the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case.

The respondent failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the hearing.

She argued that the Tribunal failed to accommodate her disability and financial constraints by refusing a written or electronic hearing, that the adjudicator was biased, and that her personal information should be removed from the decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had not cooperated in the accommodation process, that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that amending the decision to remove personal information was not warranted.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (HIV) in the provision of education services by Ryerson University.

The applicant requested anonymization, an expedited proceeding, and an interim remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request for anonymization on consent, noting the stigma associated with HIV.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing to determine the remaining requests and directed the applicant to file a reply to the respondents' factual assertions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of a hearing disability when he applied for a job.

The application was filed approximately one year and nine months after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal considered whether to extend the one-year limitation period under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay, which cited the illness and death of his grandmother, was vague and contradictory.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged he was subjected to a poisoned work environment and constructive dismissal due to harassment based on ancestry, creed, disability, ethnic origin, marital status, place of origin, and sex.

The Tribunal found that a team leader occasionally referred to the applicant using a derogatory term related to perceived infertility, constituting harassment on the basis of sex.

The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable because the team leader exercised some management functions.

However, the Tribunal concluded the harassment was not pervasive enough to create a poisoned work environment and did not justify the applicant's decision to leave his employment.

The applicant was awarded $2,000 in general damages.