HRTO 2009

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated because he was injured and unable to work, and that the employer interfered with his WSIB claim.

The respondent maintained the layoff was strictly for economic reasons due to declining sales.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, the respondent successfully rebutted the prima facie inference of discrimination by demonstrating the layoff was based on economic factors, seniority, and skill set.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because their newly retained counsel had a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the unavailability of counsel retained after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also noted the request was not made in a timely manner.

The respondents were directed to attend the hearing or find alternate representation, and to immediately comply with previous disclosure directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal notified the respondent that she had 35 days to file a Response, but no Response was filed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against her without further notice.

The respondent was given a final 35 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without her.

Two complainants, common-law spouses, filed human rights complaints against their employer.

The first complainant alleged sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal by the company owner.

The Tribunal dismissed her complaint, finding her evidence inconsistent and not credible.

The second complainant alleged his employment was terminated because of his marital relationship with the first complainant after she raised her allegations.

The Tribunal upheld his complaint, finding the employer precipitously terminated his contract based on his partner's behaviour rather than his own conduct.

The employer was ordered to pay the second complainant $3,000 in compensation for injury to dignity and $6,340 in restitution for lost wages.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a related wrongful dismissal action.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, noting that the civil action involved an almost identical fact scenario, raised the potential for overlapping remedies, and had already reached an advanced stage of litigation.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment based on his age and place of origin (Egypt) while receiving treatment in the emergency department of the respondent hospital.

He claimed that the hospital staff's actions, including the manner in which he was addressed, the drawing of blood, and the administration of injections, were part of a scheme to harass him.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's inferences of discrimination.

The respondents provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for their actions, which were accepted as reasonable medical practices.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code relating to a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to consider a section 34 application based on a prior Commission complaint.

The applicant was advised to file a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Code.

The applicants, a gay couple, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the Town of Arnprior, its Mayor, and various municipal employees and councillors regarding the provision of municipal services and the Town's response to homophobic harassment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed against the ten personal respondents.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and dismissed the application against the municipal employees and councillors, finding no compelling reason to include them as the Town accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the Mayor as a party at this stage due to his central role in the alleged discrimination.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally regulated interprovincial transportation business.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations extend beyond provincial boundaries, placing it under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a record of offences after the respondent police service rescinded a conditional offer of employment upon discovering a withdrawn assault charge.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing that 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code does not protect individuals charged but not convicted.

The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the 'record of offences' claim.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to allege discrimination on the basis of race, noting the request was timely and caused no prejudice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to add Janice Harding as a party to her human rights application.

The Tribunal found that an order was unnecessary because the organizational respondent had already identified Janice Harding and filed a Response on behalf of both itself and Ms. Harding.

The request was dismissed without prejudice to the respondents' ability to seek her removal in the future.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services by the Children's Aid Society, based on a court decision making her son a Ward of the Crown and the subsequent care he received.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a court decision cannot constitute a service provided by the respondent, and the care provided to the child, who is in the custody of the respondent, does not constitute discrimination against the applicant with respect to services.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a civil proceeding had been commenced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a party to the civil action and had not sought an order under section 46.1, so the application was not barred.

However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's allegations of reprisal did not appear to be linked to claiming or enforcing Code-based rights under section 8.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A scheduled mediation session was cancelled at the applicant's request.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant to reschedule but received no response.

After issuing a notice that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned, and receiving no reply, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After cancelling a scheduled mediation session, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications regarding new dates.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Receiving no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant, a pregnant firefighter, requested an interim remedy requiring the respondents to provide her with modified duties on a 24-hour shift schedule to accommodate her pregnancy and childcare needs.

The respondents had offered modified duties on a straight day schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that while the application appeared to have merit, the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the request or that it was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

The applicants filed transition applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after their complaints were dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the complaints were already dealt with and no reconsideration was sought.

The Tribunal found that the complaints were not continued within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code because the applicants failed to request reconsideration within the required time and delayed filing with the Tribunal.

The applications against the City of Toronto and two individual respondents were dismissed, while further submissions were requested regarding the remaining two individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the grounds of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin against a taxi company and an individual driver.

The corporate respondent denied knowledge of the events or the driver.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the corporate respondent to search its records and provide the name and address of the driver who operated the specific cab at the relevant time and place, to enable the application to be sent to the individual respondent.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging disability-based discrimination and a failure to represent him.

The respondents brought motions to dismiss the applications on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case as he only alleged the union failed to act, without any factual basis for discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's motion, finding that a prior settlement before the Ontario Labour Relations Board only resolved unfair labour practice complaints regarding vacation pay and insubordination, and did not address the substance of the human rights complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sought information on the status of the underlying complaint at the Commission.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant's file was closed as withdrawn before a formal complaint was filed or served.

As no complaint was filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, the Tribunal dismissed the section 53(3) application, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application under section 34 of the Code.