HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing incidents between 1992 and 2006.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, relying on a full and final release signed by the applicant upon his early retirement in 2006, and arguing that the allegations were outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call to hear submissions on the respondent's preliminary requests.

The applicant, a young adult with severe autism, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Ministry of Education discriminated against her by failing to provide appropriate special education programs, specifically Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI).

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with in the Wynberg litigation and by the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the core issue—the failure to provide IBI in schools—was the same question litigated and ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Wynberg.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Grade 9 student with special needs, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability.

The applicant's mother requested to expedite the proceedings, stating that her son had been home-schooled since October 2008 and she was suffering financial hardship paying for a tutor.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, noting that the issues were complex, the application was filed six months after the student was withdrawn from school, and expediting the process would not necessarily resolve the applicant's goal of compelling an investigation into alleged physical abuse.

The applicant, a Grade 9 student with special needs, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability against the school board and other respondents.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, arguing that his behaviour and morale would decrease and he would lose a valuable school year without a standard education.

The school board opposed the request, citing the complexity of the allegations and the number of respondents.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the factors described were not meaningfully different from those of many other applicants and that the issues were complex, making an abridged time frame inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed that mediation be scheduled following the filing of Responses.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add 'family status' as a ground of discrimination, along with further particulars and proposed remedies.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it effectively created a new complaint and was untimely.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding that adding family status did not change the substance of the claim, the new facts clarified the allegations without causing prejudice, and the request was made with ample time before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by teachers and a principal at his elementary school between 1980 and 1982.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 25 years after the events.

The Tribunal found that even if the delay was incurred in good faith, the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice due to faded memories and lost documents.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction (CAD).

The Tribunal refused the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, a party may only request reconsideration of a final decision.

A CAD is a case-management tool and not a final decision.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release as part of a grievance settlement concerning the same facts.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of the release, as section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance, with the last incident occurring more than five years prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and was not satisfied it was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, disability, and record of offences after being denied access to a supportive housing program.

The respondents denied the application due to safety concerns arising from the applicant's history of sexual assault, high risk of re-offending, and lack of compliance with treatment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the denial was based on legitimate safety concerns and the agency's inability to provide the necessary level of support, rather than discriminatory grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, and facilities, along with a Request to Expedite under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant sought to attend an event on May 22, 2009, making the matter time-sensitive.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Expedite, finding that the circumstances were truly urgent and that the issues would become moot if not heard before the event date.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the employer mishandled her short-term disability claim for a psychological illness.

The Tribunal found that the employer's requests for medical information and authorizations were reasonable and made in good faith to assess the claim and accommodate the applicant.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the employer interfered with the applicant's long-term disability claim.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three preliminary matters in a complaint alleging sexual orientation discrimination by police officers.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.

It dismissed the Toronto Police Services Board's request to dismiss the complaint, finding the Board could be held vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the production of an officer's personnel file and relevant policy documents, declining to apply an extraordinary O'Connor-type procedure for the disclosure of the personnel records.

The applicant, an adult student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability after being demitted from school following a verbal altercation with staff.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claimed learning disability was not connected to the behaviour that led to her being demitted, and the school board had been willing to discuss accommodation prior to the altercation.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination in the provision of policing services on the basis of mental illness.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues, including requests to strike pleadings, requests for further particulars, and requests for document production.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings that unreasonably expanded the scope of the original complaint, such as allegations regarding police reference checks and historical arrests under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to hear allegations that internal police investigations of the complainant's complaints were discriminatory.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant to provide further particulars for certain allegations and ordered the production of specific documents related to the complainant's interactions with the police, declining to apply the O'Connor two-step process for production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation for performing dialysis at work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances under the collective agreement dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was ongoing and that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The moving parties sought a stay of an interim Tribunal decision ordering the production of police discipline records pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the traditional three-part test for a stay, considering it in the context of the revised Human Rights Code, which emphasizes expeditious resolution and limits judicial review of procedural rulings.

The Tribunal found that producing the records to the adjudicator would not cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding without delay.

The request for a stay was denied, though a brief extension was granted to allow the moving parties to seek a stay from the Divisional Court.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging racial discrimination with respect to services at a restaurant.

They subsequently brought a request to add the manager and waitress involved in the incident as personal respondents.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the employees were acting within the scope of their duties and that the request was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applications were filed exactly one year after the incident and the applicants would have named the employees initially had they known their identities.

The Tribunal treated the request as a timely request for particulars rather than an extension of time, and found no prejudice in adding the individuals as respondents.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment and requested that the proceedings be expedited due to financial hardship and stress resulting from his dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, noting that financial hardship and stress alone do not constitute sufficient urgency compared to other employment dismissal cases to justify expedited proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and family status regarding the termination of her employment.

She subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking Code remedies has been commenced and not finally determined.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) applied because the facts and issues in the court action were the same as those in the application.

The application was dismissed.