HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, claiming her employer suggested to the WSIB that her injury occurred at home rather than in the workplace.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing due to thwarted attempts to return to work.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requesting submissions from the respondent and the union regarding the timeliness of the application and whether it should be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance and WSIB proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

Upon reviewing the pleadings, the Tribunal found no apparent connection between the alleged ground of discrimination and the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions setting out the facts relied upon to demonstrate the required nexus.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences against her former employer, her union, the College of Nurses of Ontario, and numerous individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applications because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding and an incapacity proceeding before the College.

Finding considerable overlap of facts and issues, and noting that the arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised in the grievance, the Tribunal deferred both applications pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, citing difficulties obtaining medical reports and witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

As the applicant was unprepared to proceed and called no evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of evidence.

The respondents in a human rights application brought a Request for an Order to dismiss the application for delay and to clarify its scope.

The Tribunal found that the initial allegations formed a pattern of ongoing discrimination and were not out of time under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal struck the applicant's newly raised ground of sex discrimination due to an unexplained four-year delay.

The Tribunal allowed post-complaint allegations that were a continuation of the original dispute but struck allegations relating solely to a separate dispute with an insurance company.

The Tribunal also ordered the hearing to be bifurcated to address liability first.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his union, his professional regulatory body, and his school board.

He made a request for the production of documents and disclosure of information.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was premature because they had raised preliminary objections regarding whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case and whether he was improperly expanding his allegations.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, denying the applicant's request as premature until the preliminary matters are determined at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to amend four transitional human rights applications to include new claims of constructive discrimination and discrimination by association regarding the respondents' duty to investigate.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed amendments were entirely new allegations and not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the applications.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a further extension of time to file responding materials, noting that previous extensions had been granted and the hearing on preliminary issues was imminent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, and facilities, claiming he heard homophobic slurs at minor hockey games.

He requested an extension of time to complete his reply and objected to the application being deferred.

The Tribunal found that this application raised similar facts and issues to several other applications filed by the applicant that had already been deferred.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of preliminary issues in the transitional applications and granted the applicant's request for an extension of time to file his reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the application be expedited due to financial pressures and risk of bankruptcy.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial harm does not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters, and noting the applicant's unexplained five-and-a-half-month delay in filing the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after a Falun Gong booth was cancelled at an Asian Heritage Month event.

The applicant brought a request to add the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Asian Heritage Month Society as respondents.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding respondents and found that there were allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation against the proposed respondents, noting that unincorporated associations can potentially be liable under the Code.

The request to add the respondents was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege any ground or area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not allege facts that would constitute a reprisal or threat of reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the corporate respondent arising from the same factual context, seeking damages for breach of employment contract.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement has been commenced.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a Black woman enrolled in an esthetics program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour because the make-up kit provided by the respondent college did not contain products for darker skin tones.

She further alleged that she was expelled for complaining about the kit.

The Tribunal found that while the kit lacked products for all skin tones, this did not amount to discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant was expelled due to her ongoing negative behaviour and attitude, not because of her complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance regarding a minimum income criteria and co-signor requirement for rental accommodation.

The applicant brought a Request for Order to add Spallacci Contracting Limited as a respondent, as the original respondent indicated the developer shared responsibility for the policy.

The Tribunal granted the request and added Spallacci Contracting Limited as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the university regarding a plagiarism charge.

The application was filed more than two months after the one-year statutory deadline.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

Finding that the applicant lacked due diligence and his explanation lacked credibility, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences, specifically an impaired driving conviction under the Criminal Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide submissions showing he had received a pardon under the Criminal Records Act, which is necessary to establish a record of offences under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the decision only reflected the respondents' positions, her complaint was arbitrarily transferred, the decision was discriminatory for not using her name, and it failed to consider her children.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue evidence, the transfer was done by her own signed form, referring to parties by title is standard practice, and the original complaint only dealt with one child.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 25.5.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a transitional human rights application on the basis that it was filed by the applicant's father, who lacked authorization to act on behalf of his adult son.

The Tribunal waived the strict application of its rules regarding the filing of the transition form but ordered the applicant to confirm in writing within ten days whether he wished to pursue the application and to designate a representative if desired.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as out of time and for failing to establish a prima facie case, and alternatively sought further particulars.

The Tribunal found the complaint regarding the unsuitability of the applicant's accommodated position was an ongoing matter and therefore timely.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had potentially made out a prima facie case, but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars detailing how the position was unsuitable given he had performed it for three and a half years.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her treating psychiatrist and the hospital.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory incident.

The Tribunal found that the closure of the applicant's file was not a discriminatory incident and could not be used to extend the time limit.

The Tribunal also found that the delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had pursued other complaints during the delay period.

The application was dismissed.