HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex after being terminated one month prior to returning from pregnancy leave.

The applicant had also commenced a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) arising from the same termination.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's human rights application for failing to disclose a prima facie case and lacking completeness.

The applicant filed a cross-request seeking to amend her application and an extension of time to do so.

The Tribunal found that the initial application was sufficient to meet the limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss and granted the applicant's request to file a complete, particularized amended application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability by a WSIB claims adjudicator who allegedly made inappropriate comments about the applicant's depression and denied benefits.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, noting developing jurisprudence on the application of the Code to statutory decision-makers, and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing where the jurisdictional issue could be fully argued.

The complainant, a probationary labourer, lacerated his hand while off work and requested light duties.

The respondent terminated his employment immediately upon receiving the request, claiming performance and attendance issues.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by rushing to judgment without making inquiries.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, $4,760 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement a human rights policy and training.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to correct the names of the corporate and individual respondents.

The respondents had notice and did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability regarding a difficult return-to-work experience.

The applicant had also filed a grievance through her union relating to the same facts.

Both parties consented to deferring the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal agreed that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplication of proceedings and inconsistent results, as the Grievance Settlement Board has the authority to address the human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal in the respondent school board's failure to hire him in 2006 and 2007, and sought to include earlier allegations of discrimination dating back to 1995.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2006 allegations were out of time and could only be used as background information for the reprisal claim.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents from the application, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for its employees and capable of responding to the alleged Code infringements.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, the first alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and the second alleging reprisal.

The respondents requested that the two applications be consolidated and heard together on the dates already scheduled for the first application.

The applicant agreed to consolidation but requested an adjournment to allow more time for disclosure and production.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the facts were interrelated, the second matter was not factually complicated, and the applicant would not be unfairly disadvantaged by the abridged timelines.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a grievance alleging the same acts of discrimination.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

Applying its normal approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

She also filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was scheduled for arbitration.

Both parties agreed that the Tribunal should defer the application.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited.

She cited impending financial hardship due to loss of income and benefits, as well as concerns about the preservation of evidence given a respondent's upcoming retirement.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial consequences and standard evidentiary concerns do not meet the high threshold of urgency required to prioritize the application over others.

The applicant requested leave to conditionally withdraw her human rights application, with the option to reactivate it until October 15, 2010.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal adjourned the application until October 10, 2010, allowing the applicant to reactivate it before that date, failing which the application would be deemed unconditionally withdrawn.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents had failed to produce any documents, including Records of Employment for other employees allegedly dismissed for shortage of work.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately deliver all arguably relevant documents, noting that failure to do so could preclude them from relying on such documents at the Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging retaliatory dismissal due to a previous human rights complaint.

The respondents argued the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Code as it dealt with the same subject-matter as the previous complaint.

The Tribunal found the reprisal allegations were new and distinct, and thus not barred by section 53(8).

However, because the applicant had an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondents requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal noted that the arbitration involved the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding that deferral was the most fair and expeditious way to proceed, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related low back injury and subsequently became pregnant, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and pregnancy.

She required accommodation for a medical restriction against prolonged standing.

The employer refused her request to use a chair at her workstation due to safety concerns and instead offered her the option to sit in the first aid room.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to fully explore all options that would have enabled the applicant to fulfill the essential duties of her job without prolonged standing.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents infringed the applicant's Code-protected rights and ordered compensation for lost earnings and $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an employee at a Zellers distribution centre, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the employer and its disability management company failed to reasonably accommodate her work-related back and shoulder injuries.

The Tribunal found that the employer engaged in a reasonable accommodation process by developing return-to-work plans based on medical information, offering modified work, and instructing the applicant not to perform tasks exceeding her restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the accommodation provided was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in employment.

The respondents withdrew their consent to mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that an oral hearing be held to determine outstanding jurisdictional issues, including whether the applications were filed out of time, whether the subject matter falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability during her employment and upon her termination.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by forcing her to return to work early from medical leave.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by failing to recall her from a temporary layoff and misrepresenting the licensing requirements for a newly created marketing assistant position to avoid hiring her.

The Tribunal awarded $18,906 in lost wages, $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to develop an anti-discrimination policy.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The Board had previously found that the applicant was terminated for misconduct (harassment).

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not challenge the misconduct finding, but allowed the allegations of racial and sexual orientation discrimination to proceed.

The applicant's request to add parties was dismissed, and case management directions were issued regarding the filing of documents.