HRTO 2009

The respondents requested an order to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by a decision under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The applicant had previously claimed constructive dismissal under the ESA, which was denied.

The Tribunal found that the ESA decision did not address the applicant's allegation of mistreatment based on sexual orientation, as it was outside the employment standards officer's mandate.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had received notice of the hearing and had not requested an adjournment.

As it is the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant, a patternmaker, alleged that her employment was terminated due to her disability (sensitivity to chemical solvents) and that the corporate respondent failed to accommodate her by not providing a chemical-free work environment.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the applicant was permitted to work in the office away from the factory floor, and that the sole reason for her termination was the downsizing of the operation and its relocation to Bangladesh.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal removed the ground of record of offences because the applicant explicitly denied it in the application form.

The respondents raised an issue of delay, as the application was filed more than a year after the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal deferred the delay issue, directing the parties to proceed to mediation first.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal after he was not hired by the respondent, which had taken over the business of his bankrupt former employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not explain how the alleged reprisal related to the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found no facts alleging that the respondent's behaviour was in response to claiming a right, participating in a proceeding, or refusing to infringe a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on record of offences in his employment as a truck driver.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the respondent's interprovincial and international freight transport business falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and reprisal after being terminated following a workplace injury and a subsequent WSIB claim.

He claimed the employer discouraged him from reporting the injury as work-related and terminated him for requesting accurate pay records.

The Tribunal found that the employer did not discourage the WSIB claim but rather sought medical confirmation to file the necessary forms.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was not a reprisal, but rather a legitimate response to the applicant's aggressive behaviour, yelling, and threats to damage the employer's business and reputation during a dispute over pay records.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights applications, which originally alleged that the collective agreement prevented him from applying for promotion due to his disability, to include post-complaint allegations regarding the respondents' refusal to recognize his diploma program.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would alter the subject matter of the original complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, contrary to the transitional provisions of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination against an organizational respondent and an individual respondent.

The individual respondent, who was no longer employed by the organizational respondent, did not receive notice of the application at the business address provided.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for the individual respondent or to request an order requiring the former employer to provide the contact information, failing which the Tribunal would not deal with the application against the individual respondent.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of the allegations.

In an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, the applicant requested the production of financial and student registration documents.

The respondents failed to respond in time but later claimed the documents were irrelevant, and filed their own requests to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction and to adjourn the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce financial data related to restructuring and student registration statistics, finding them arguably relevant to the respondents' claim that the applicant was terminated due to restructuring and low enrolment.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' requests to dismiss and adjourn, noting no clear jurisdictional bar and no extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response after the Tribunal sent the application materials by regular mail, though couriered and registered mail were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal declined to immediately proceed in the respondent's absence, citing concerns about actual notice, and directed that the materials be sent to alternate addresses and contacts provided by the applicant, giving the respondent 10 days to file a Response.

The complainants requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights complaints based on the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

They alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the original adjudicator previously practiced at a management-side labour law firm, and they disputed the Tribunal's statutory interpretation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that an adjudicator's prior legal practice does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of place of origin (Russia) when it denied her admission to its Faculty of Law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rejection was based on bona fide concerns about her ability to complete the program, specifically her extremely low LSAT score and poor academic record in a university-level course.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant failed to prove that her place of origin was a factor in the admissions decision.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, citing medical reasons at the last minute.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned, noting the lack of medical documentation, the late notice, and the costs incurred.

The Tribunal denied the immediate request for dismissal, instead directing the applicant to provide specific medical documentation from a registered medical practitioner to substantiate his inability to attend.

Failure to comply would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex when she was not acclaimed as President of her Union Local after the incumbent withdrew his candidacy and suspended the election.

The Tribunal found that the election was suspended due to significant membership objections regarding improper notice, not because of the applicant's sex.

The application was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The respondent did not file a Response, but instead filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application or order particulars, and requesting an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a full Response, noting that its Rules require a complete Response even when raising preliminary objections, except in specific circumstances not present here.

The respondent's requests were deferred until after the Response and Reply are filed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application because the applicant had passed away.

The Tribunal received correspondence from counsel for the applicant's estate confirming that the estate would not be proceeding with the matter.

Treating this correspondence as consent, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with multiple Tribunal orders regarding disclosure and production.

The applicant and his paralegal representative failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for abandonment and abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's repeated failure to comply with deadlines, communicate with the Tribunal, and attend the hearing constituted both abandonment and an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a female journeyman electrician, alleged a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex by her employer.

At the hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the incidents described by the applicant, while occurring in a male-dominated workplace, did not provide an objective basis to infer that she was treated differently or disadvantageously because of her gender.

The application was dismissed.