HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of a taxicab licence in 1983 and discriminatory enforcement of municipal law in 2006.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on several grounds, primarily delay, without filing a full Response.

The Tribunal found it fair not to require a full Response given the extraordinary length of time since the alleged events.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary oral hearing solely to determine the issue of timeliness under section 34 of the Code.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of an employment discrimination application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination.

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

The Tribunal noted that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the release.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisals in housing on the basis of disability.

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 granted an extension to July 31, 2009, to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, who self-identifies as having a cognitive disability, filed a human rights application alleging that York University's Osgoode Hall Law School discriminated against him by requiring an LSAT score and refusing to waive it.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant never actually applied to the law school, the requirement was never imposed on him, making the application premature.

The Tribunal also found that the law school's website description of its Access Applicant Category did not indicate an intention to discriminate.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because five grievances based on the same facts and issues were proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the arbitration would not address the human rights issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievances, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding amendments to the respondent's health and benefit plan.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, calculating the time from when notice of the amendments was given to employees.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the incident of alleged discrimination occurred when the changes to the plan came into effect, not when the notice was provided.

Therefore, the application was filed within the time limit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service failed to investigate her reports of crimes because they deemed her not credible due to her disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and commenced in bad faith.

The Tribunal noted that recent amendments to the Human Rights Code require an opportunity for oral submissions before making a final determination on applications within its jurisdiction.

Finding that the allegations fell within its jurisdiction, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that a hearing be scheduled on the merits.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated because of a workplace injury to his elbow.

The respondent claimed the termination was solely due to the applicant's repeated misuse of a company credit card for personal purchases.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had misused the credit card, he had not done so after signing a final warning letter.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's subsequent workplace injury and need for accommodation was a factor in the termination, violating the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant engaged in an abuse of process by lying in his pleadings to maximize lost income claims, and accordingly reduced his monetary compensation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and two supervisors.

Compass Group Canada Ltd., which took over the cafeteria contract and employed the supervisors, was initially named as a respondent but removed in an interim decision.

The adjudicator reconsidered the removal on his own initiative after discovering that submissions from the applicant and personal respondents had been omitted due to an administrative error.

The adjudicator found no valid reason to keep Compass as a respondent, as there were no allegations it violated the Code and no evidence it inherited the former employer's liabilities.

The order removing Compass was confirmed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination against her employer and a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent was subject to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal confirmed the application against the corporate respondent could not proceed without court leave.

The Tribunal requested written submissions on whether the CCAA stay also applied to the personal respondent.

A request by the respondents to add the applicant's union as a party was dismissed because there was no allegation that the union violated the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination sought an order to add the CEO and a Regional Manager of the respondent employer as personal respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying the two-part test from Payne and Greenhorn.

The Tribunal found that the Application contained no allegations against the CEO and that the mentions of the Regional Manager could not serve as a basis for a finding of discrimination.

The respondent employer requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's Notice of Request to Dismiss.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to advise whether she intends to pursue the application and to explain why the release does not bar the application, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal held a teleconference to address whether a human rights complaint was stayed against a corporate respondent subject to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal confirmed that the proceeding was stayed against the corporate respondent and granted the complainant until September 15, 2009, to seek leave from the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

The applicant, a 9-year-old Black student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin by the respondent school board and three teachers.

The allegations included racial name-calling by other students, derogatory comments by teachers, and a racially motivated report to the Children's Aid Society regarding sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the school took appropriate steps to address the reported incidents of racial name-calling and bullying.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination regarding the teachers' comments or the report to the CAS, which was deemed a reasonable response to the information received.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

The respondent employer requested early dismissal of the application, arguing it was barred by a General Release signed by the applicant upon her termination.

The applicant alleged she signed the release based on untrue reasons provided for her dismissal.

The Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing by teleconference or written submissions to determine whether the application should be dismissed because of the signed release.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

They argued that closed criminal investigations into the allegations constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

They also argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a criminal investigation is not a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, and that determining the nature of the employment relationship requires a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming Dr. Lai and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as respondents.

The Ministry sought to be removed as a respondent because the application contained no allegations against it.

After the applicant failed to file submissions on the issue despite being granted an extension of time, the Tribunal removed the Ministry as a respondent and directed that a hearing be scheduled to deal with the allegations against Dr. Lai.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and in a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that adjudicative decisions of the Court do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because its subject matter was the same as a complaint previously filed with and declined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely repeated arguments made previously and failed to satisfy any of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.