HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by his former employer.

The Tribunal held a teleconference and discovered the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject-matter, which the Commission had declined to deal with.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits applications where the subject-matter is the same or substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a parallel grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant argued that the grievance would not sufficiently address the conduct of two union members involved in the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that since the application was against the employer and employees acting on its behalf, their conduct could be addressed in the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the complainant's human rights complaint.

The Commission submitted that its counsel had misread an earlier interim decision and erroneously advised the unrepresented complainant that no evidence was required for the written hearing.

The Tribunal directed the complainant and the respondent to provide written submissions on whether the Request for Reconsideration should be granted before making a final determination.

The applicant failed to comply with a previous interim decision requiring him to confirm his attendance at the scheduled hearing and to deliver a witness list and documents.

Despite the applicant's representative receiving the interim decision and correspondence from the respondent requesting dismissal, no steps were taken.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the hearing.

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

The applicant had also filed a grievance under her collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Despite all parties opposing deferral, the Tribunal found that the grievance and application were based on the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had the power and responsibility to apply human rights legislation.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination after being denied attendance at a fundraising event.

The Tribunal scheduled an expedited in-person hearing.

The applicant, residing in Calgary, requested a teleconference hearing or a decision based on written materials, stating she would not attend in person.

The respondent objected to a teleconference due to the need for oral evidence and credibility findings.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing, finding an in-person hearing necessary, and ordered the applicant to indicate by a specified date whether she wished to proceed with the application, failing which it would be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, record of offences, association, and reprisals against her former employer, union, and numerous individuals.

Upon initial review, the Tribunal noted that the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit and that the allegations did not clearly connect to prohibited grounds under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and why the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a prosecutor allegedly refused to allow her to challenge a parking ticket because she had her infant with her.

The applicant requested to add the Director of Prosecutions and the Director of Court Services for the City of Toronto as respondents.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties and granted the request, finding that the threshold of showing an appearance of a Code violation was met and there was no assertion of prejudice.

The Tribunal convened a hearing which the personal respondent failed to attend, despite being aware of it and being summoned by the organizational respondent.

The personal respondent claimed lack of knowledge of the application and misunderstanding regarding legal representation.

The Tribunal noted the hearing had begun and would continue with or without her, outlining the potential consequences of her non-attendance under Rule 3.13.

The Tribunal also ordered the organizational respondent to respond to the applicant's production request and ordered the personal respondent to comply with disclosure rules.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the applicant had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, barring her from filing under section 53 or section 34.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, it was not "filed" within the meaning of section 53(1) because the Commission closed the file as withdrawn before formally filing or serving it.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the section 53(5) application, noting that the applicant was not precluded from filing a new application under section 34.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or limit a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling and assault by police officers, arguing that the complainant's prior unsuccessful civil action for assault and battery precluded relitigation of the facts.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of abuse of process, holding that the complainant could not lead evidence conflicting with the civil court's factual findings that the alleged assaults did not occur.

However, the Tribunal found that the civil court had not decided whether race was a factor in the arrest or charges, and allowed those allegations, as well as allegations regarding the initial vehicle stop, to proceed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against a bank for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the Canadian Human Rights Commission refused to accept his complaint on the basis that the bank's customer service is managed by a privately owned corporation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant provided no evidence of the Commission's refusal and no reason to doubt that the matter relates to banking under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision noting the application disclosed no facts within the scope of section 8 and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it does not have a general power to evaluate employment dismissals absent a Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, and age, nine months after being dismissed from her position as a building superintendent.

She brought a request to expedite the application, citing financial hardship, difficulty finding new employment, and impacts on her maternity and parental Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the financial effects of employment termination do not generally constitute indications of urgency compared to other dismissal cases.

Furthermore, the applicant's unexplained nine-month delay in filing the application weighed against granting priority for expedited proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and association after being dismissed from his employment as a building superintendent.

He filed a Request to Expedite the Application citing financial hardship and the impact on his spouse's maternity benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the financial effects of employment termination do not generally constitute urgency compared to other dismissal cases, and noting the applicant waited nine months before filing the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a bus driver and an inspector as personal respondents.

Applying the test for adding a party, the Tribunal found that the allegations against the proposed respondents could, if proven, amount to an infringement of the Code.

The request to add the personal respondents was granted.

The respondents requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a related civil action commenced by the applicant against other parties.

The applicant agreed to defer the hearing but argued that pre-hearing steps like mediation and disclosure should proceed.

The Tribunal found that disclosure and mediation should also be deferred, as developments in the civil action could impact disclosure obligations and mediation is voluntary.

The application was deferred in its entirety pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and a poisoned work environment on the basis of disability and place of origin.

He claimed the respondents failed to accommodate his return from medical leave and made discriminatory remarks regarding his Irish accent and disability during a meeting.

The Tribunal found that a bona fide graduated return to work program had been prepared, which the applicant chose to abandon.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondents, finding the applicant's testimony inconsistent and evasive, and concluded that no discriminatory remarks or threats were made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing his human rights application.

The applicant did not allege any new facts or evidence, nor any other factor under Rule 25.5 that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

His central submission was a disagreement with the adjudicator's findings of fact.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and sex after the respondents discontinued support for a charitable organization.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning its jurisdiction, as it was unclear what goods, services, or facilities the respondents provided to the applicant.

The applicant was ordered to provide submissions explaining how the respondents' actions amounted to discrimination within the meaning of the Code.