HRTO 2009

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he suffered from chemical sensitivities caused by workplace fumes and was terminated for complaining about them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from bronchitis, a commonplace and temporary illness that does not constitute a disability under the Code.

Furthermore, the employer did not perceive the applicant to have a disability, as the medical note provided indicated he could return to regular duties shortly.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing to retain counsel, and a confidentiality order to anonymize his name due to the stigma associated with his disability.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances for the late request.

The Tribunal also denied the confidentiality order, holding that the principle of open hearings outweighed the applicant's privacy concerns, and that the nature of the medical evidence was not exceptionally sensitive compared to other disability cases.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent, acting through a court-appointed interim receiver, requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed due to the release, and established a timeline for the parties to file materials.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment, arguing that the applicant had an ongoing civil claim for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code was not triggered because the civil claim did not raise the Code or seek remedies for discrimination.

The respondent was ordered to file a full response, and the applicant was directed to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the civil action.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the subject-matter was substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

The applicant failed to make submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code and dismissed the application.

The respondents in a human rights proceeding requested an order for particulars of the applicant's requested remedies, which included $150,000 in monetary damages.

After the applicant provided further particulars citing medical issues and a work-related accident, the respondents sought production of his medical and employment records.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the production request, ordering that the applicant first give evidence on remedies and be cross-examined, after which submissions on production would be heard.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite his human rights application, alleging that the respondent company might be filing for bankruptcy or closing.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the concern was speculative.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Code, arguing the applicant had filed a civil claim in Small Claims Court based on the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the civil claim for assault shared some facts with the application, it did not allege human rights discrimination or seek remedies under the Code.

The respondent was ordered to file a full Response.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code to transfer a complaint from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Tribunal.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had dismissed the complaint in December 2007 and the applicant's request for reconsideration was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was not a 'continued complaint' under section 53 because it had been disposed of by the Commission and not reconsidered.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal arising from his attempts to inspect pension plan documents.

The applicant requested that the two applications be consolidated.

The Tribunal granted the request to hear the applications together, finding that they involved the same parties and sufficiently similar facts and issues.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file further submissions regarding the respondents' request to remove the individual respondents as parties.

The applicant, who was dismissed for poor performance, alleged that his termination and a prior refusal of annual leave were discriminatory based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and creed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that any prohibited ground was a factor in the respondent's actions.

The evidence supported the respondent's position that the dismissal was the result of progressive discipline for poor performance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final 7 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and sexual solicitation, claiming her name was on a black list kept by the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, no prima facie case, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the preliminary issues should be considered by way of an oral hearing and directed the Registrar to schedule a half-day hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 7 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the school board and an individual respondent.

The applicant's union, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, filed a request to intervene, arguing it had a significant interest in any remedial issues, the accommodation process, and the interpretation of the collective agreement.

As the application raised issues of general interest to the union, the Tribunal granted the request to intervene, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 24, 2009, citing a medical emergency involving the personal respondent's brother abroad.

Although a previous adjournment had been granted and there was a history of delay, the Tribunal found that a medical emergency involving a close family member constituted exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment was granted, and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled peremptorily for September.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex after his employment was terminated.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant and the respondent had signed a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a grievance related to his termination, which included a provision that the applicant would not commence any claim or complaint against the respondent.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because it violated the settlement agreement.

The applicant contended that he signed the settlement under economic duress because he needed the Record of Employment changed to receive employment insurance benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the settlement and was not under sufficient economic duress to invalidate the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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 respond under Rule 5.5 and provided a final deadline of August 10, 2009, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Despite receiving notice and being offered accommodation for her disability-related needs, the applicant refused to attend, citing financial constraints and dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's processes.

The respondents attended and requested dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the applicant bears the responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of her allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking further particulars, an extension of time to file a response, and an order striking certain sections of the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, respondents must file a complete response before making preliminary objections or requesting particulars.

The respondents were directed to file a complete response within 20 days.