HRTO 2009

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that the respondents' legal counsel be added as respondents, arguing that their position on behalf of the respondents contributed to the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that legal counsel representing their clients do not become party to the alleged discrimination merely by defending their clients' interests.

The Tribunal found no basis to exercise its discretion under section 36(5) of the Human Rights Code to add the proposed parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer.

The Teamsters Local Union 938, representing the applicant's bargaining unit, requested non-party intervenor status.

The respondent supported the request, while the applicant opposed it, alleging the union had not represented him fairly.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, a bargaining agent will be granted intervenor status in applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to add a new respondent to their human rights application.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the new party be added as a respondent and directed them to deliver a Response within 60 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding four human rights applications filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues, the Tribunal ordered that they proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide available dates for mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent physician terminated their relationship due to disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite, arguing that he needed medication repeats within 30 days and would face severe harm if unable to find a prescribing physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged harm speculative as the applicant could seek treatment at walk-in clinics or emergency rooms.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacked the remedial power to order a physician to prescribe medication.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex, sexual solicitation, and age.

The personal respondent, the applicant's former store manager, had not filed a response and the Tribunal was not confident he had received the application.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p), the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to produce the personal respondent's last known address to facilitate service, and directed that a mediation date be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application that substantially overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the arbitration of the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (drug addiction) following his termination from employment.

He brought a request to expedite the proceedings, citing dire financial circumstances and stress.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the financial harm described did not warrant priority over other matters and noting the complexity of the issues.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions detailing how the nine individual respondents named in the application violated the Code before requiring them to respond.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance and arbitration procedure.

The applicant opposed the deferral and requested that the application be expedited due to her fragile mental state.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were part of an ongoing grievance process and that the adjudicator had the statutory authority to determine the human rights issues.

To avoid potential inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application and denied the request to expedite.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached a previous human rights settlement and engaged in a reprisal by asking her not to attend a Christmas concert at the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not breach the confidentiality provision or fail to meet their obligations regarding human rights training and posting Code cards.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents' actions in reminding the applicant not to attend the workplace were based on their interpretation of the settlement agreement and did not demonstrate an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer alleging discrimination in employment.

She also included supplemental forms alleging discrimination by her lawyer, Legal Aid Ontario, and her former spouse, without naming them as respondents in the main application.

The Tribunal held that the supplemental allegations did not comply with the Rules of Procedure and declined to process them as part of the current application, giving the applicant 20 days to file separate, complete applications against those parties.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing on the basis that recent allegations necessitated the attendance of a personal respondent who was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Member hearing the preliminary matters retains the discretion to determine whether the recent allegations form part of the applications and whether the personal respondent's presence is required.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's amendments to its post-retirement benefits plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application as premature, arguing that the applicant had not yet retired and therefore had not suffered any loss.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the incident giving rise to the alleged discrimination occurred when the change in eligibility criteria came into effect, not upon the applicant's future retirement.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the employer and the union regarding provisions in a collective agreement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary matters.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to process the applications separately, finding it fair and expeditious to process them together.

The Tribunal also found that the union was a proper respondent to the second application, despite the original complaint naming the fire department, as the corporate entity being complained about was evidently the union.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in his employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed his supervisor made derogatory comments about his English proficiency and that he was unfairly demoted during a bumping process.

He also alleged a co-worker made a racially offensive comment.

At the close of the applicant's case, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a condominium owner who rents her units to college students, filed a human rights application alleging that the condominium corporation's enforcement of its single-family residence declaration discriminates on the basis of age, family status, and marital status.

The applicant brought a request for an interim remedy seeking an order directing the corporation to issue permanent access cards to her new student tenants.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the corporation was willing to issue the cards subject to certain conditions, such as providing lease information to ensure compliance with a prior court order.

The Tribunal concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant and the interim remedy was not necessary to ensure an effective final remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant acknowledged signing the release but claimed she did so under emotional and economic duress and without legal advice.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding the termination of his employment.

He alleged that the respondents provided forged documents and that their lawyer tampered with his witness.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations and concluded that the applicant was merely attempting to restate his case and attack the evidence given at the hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a black man of Caribbean origin, alleged that his termination from employment during a company downsizing was discriminatory based on his race, colour, and place of origin.

He argued that as the most senior member of his team, he should not have been the first to be terminated.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision was based on legitimate work-related factors, including the applicant's past refusal to perform assigned tasks, and that there was no evidence to infer discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black man, was suspended for three days following a workplace dispute where he became visibly angry and disrespectful towards his supervisor.

The employer subsequently required him to attend anger management counselling as a condition of his continued employment.

When the applicant refused, his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's behaviour warranted discipline, the requirement for anger management counselling was an over-reaction influenced by the discriminatory stereotype that Black men have a propensity towards violence.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer subjected the applicant to a heightened degree of scrutiny, thereby contravening section 5 of the Human Rights Code.