HRTO 2009

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the facts and issues were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant did not object to the deferral provided the grievance was resolved quickly.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts and issues were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding where an arbitrator remained seized of the matter.

The respondents requested deferral, and the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, as the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal noted its normal approach is to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement raising the same human rights issues.

Finding no reason to depart from this approach, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three procedural issues.

First, the Tribunal declined to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy phases, as both parties opposed it.

Second, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical records from treating physicians regarding her emotional state for the six months before and after the alleged discrimination, as she claimed substantial damages for mental anguish.

Third, the Tribunal refused to reconsider its prior ruling deferring the respondents' preliminary objections (including Charter and jurisdictional arguments) until after hearing evidence on the merits, finding that a clear factual context was necessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the ground of disability, challenging the Ontario Drug Benefit Program's limit on coverage for a specific prescription pain medication.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be expedited, stating he could not afford the medication without coverage.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the circumstances were not truly urgent, noting the respondent's submission that the applicant could consult his doctor for alternative covered pain medications.

The applicant was terminated from his employment after taking time off to attend to his newborn son's medical appointment and his spouse's medical emergency.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer's requirement that the applicant take no more time off work adversely affected him due to his family status.

The Tribunal held that the employer failed to meet both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate, as it did not inquire into the applicant's needs or establish that accommodating him would cause undue hardship.

The application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay $20,000 in general damages and $3,500 for lost wages.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in his employment and termination.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged his supervisor failed to hear his side of the story regarding a workplace incident, breaching his right to free speech.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not allege any facts demonstrating a reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the mother of his deceased same-sex common-law partner.

The applicant claimed the mother refused to acknowledge their relationship and denied him access to the deceased's belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the individual respondent for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the dispute arose from a family relationship rather than a protected social area under the Human Rights Code, such as housing, employment, or services.

The applicant, a junior kindergarten student with life-threatening allergies, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability by refusing to agree to an appropriate individual accommodation plan.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings, arguing he would be unable to attend school in September without a satisfactory plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the applicant had not demonstrated truly urgent circumstances that would undermine a fair adjudication, and noted the complexity of the accommodation issues required a full response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the application, arguing it was barred by a release signed by the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he intended to pursue the application and why the release did not bar it, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged discrimination by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for failing to accommodate his needs during a hearing.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether to add the LTB as a respondent.

Despite the respondents' argument that the LTB is not a legal entity capable of being sued, the Tribunal found that the LTB falls within the definition of a 'person' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 36(5) of the Code to add the LTB as a respondent, noting that the LTB is the appropriate entity to respond to allegations regarding its accommodation policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the president of his condominium's board of directors.

The respondent requested that the application be withdrawn against the individual president and that the condominium corporation be added as the respondent instead.

The applicant consented to this request.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the individual, added the condominium corporation as the respondent, and directed the corporation to file a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing a hearing to determine whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, given a related court proceeding involving different respondents.

The hearing will also address whether the corporate respondent is a proper organization respondent and whether the personal respondents should remain.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent employer.

The respondent was under protection pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

After the Superior Court extended the CCAA stay, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that no further steps be taken in the human rights proceeding for up to one year.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to advise if she wishes to proceed once the stay expires, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

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

He alleged bias, criticized the adjudicator's evidentiary rulings, and attacked the respondents' evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as his submissions were an attempt to re-argue the case and challenge rulings that should have been addressed at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) discriminated against him on the basis of his male gender during a family law proceeding.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the OCL was acting pursuant to its statutory mandate to provide services to the minor children, not to the applicant.

As the OCL was not providing a service to the applicant, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) requested non-party intervenor status in a human rights application filed by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant sought remedies that could affect the collective agreement and other union members.

Noting that a bargaining agent will generally be granted intervenor status in such circumstances absent exceptional reasons, the Tribunal granted OPSEU non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace and the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of services after a transit bus driver refused to accept a transfer.

The applicant sought to add the unnamed bus driver ("John Doe") as a personal respondent.

The respondent transit commission objected, arguing the applicant failed to follow proper procedure.

The Tribunal noted that to properly serve a Request for Order to add the driver, the applicant required the driver's name and address, which were in the respondent's possession.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the driver's name and address for service to facilitate the procedural requirements.

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator identified threshold legal issues and requested submissions before the respondents had filed their response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that modern administrative procedure and the Human Rights Code authorize active case management, and that identifying relevant issues does not indicate pre-determination or favouritism.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that his concerns about the respondents' failure to call certain witnesses or alleged comments by opposing counsel did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.