HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of an outstanding union grievance related to the same matter.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further written submissions regarding the respondent's request for deferral, noting that her initial reply lacked sufficient detail.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent organization, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, race, and colour, as well as a poisoned work environment and a failure to investigate her complaints.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decisions regarding salary increases and performance reviews were based on legitimate business and performance considerations, not discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant was not subjected to a poisoned work environment and that the employer did not fail in its duty to investigate once it became aware of her concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received proper notice of the conference.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, seeking accommodation to perform dialysis at work.

The applicant requested the matter be expedited.

The respondent opposed, stating accommodation had already been provided.

Noting that the applicant had also filed a union grievance regarding the same facts, the Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the parties and the union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, while concurrently pursuing a civil action based on the same facts.

Following an interim decision seeking submissions on whether the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, the applicant requested to withdraw her application without prejudice to her right to re-file if she discontinued the civil action.

The respondents took no position on the withdrawal but noted the one-year limitation period under section 34.

The Tribunal permitted the application to be withdrawn without terms.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the conference and concluded that her failure to appear indicated she no longer wished to pursue the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and pregnancy following her termination.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a parallel application under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on the deferral request, after which the respondent may reply and the Tribunal will determine whether to defer the matter.

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

The respondent sought directions, arguing the application should have been filed under section 53(5) as a transitional application.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the application properly fell under section 53(5) and directed the applicant to file an amended application using the correct transitional forms and rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and requested an expedited proceeding because his building lacked a wheelchair ramp.

After the respondent installed the ramp, the applicant withdrew his request for an interim order but maintained the request to expedite.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances were no longer urgent following the installation of the ramp.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in its handling of his complaints against two physicians.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had already appealed the College's decisions to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that the HPARB appeals addressed substantially the same issues, including discrimination and Charter arguments, and granted the request to defer the application pending the outcome of the HPARB proceedings to avoid duplication.

The applicant, a seven-year-old child with a disability, brought a human rights complaint against the respondent school board.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant's parents requested orders to close the hearing to the public, seal medical and school records, and keep the identities of the applicant and his parents confidential.

The Tribunal denied the requests, emphasizing the fundamental principle of open and transparent proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found that the sensitive nature of the medical evidence and the applicant's age were not exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the open court principle.

The applicant, a physician trained in the United States, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin regarding the treatment of his specialty training.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to strike the respondents' Responses for lack of signature.

The Tribunal also directed that a one-day preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed due to an alleged settlement or for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a full and final release signed by the applicant upon termination.

The Tribunal directed that a teleconference be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent brought a request to strike portions of the Commission's hearing brief and reply that allegedly expanded the scope of the original human rights complaint.

The new allegations included claims that the respondent failed to accommodate the complainant's age by lowering performance standards, that early retirement packages constituted systemic discrimination, and that the respondent failed to investigate internal human rights concerns.

The parties resolved several issues at the hearing.

The Tribunal struck the allegations regarding the failure to investigate, finding that raising this issue six years after the amended complaint was filed would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The respondents brought preliminary requests to remove three individual respondents from the human rights application and to bar a report made to the Children's Aid Society from being considered.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding it premature to remove the individual respondents whose conduct was central to the allegations, and holding that it could not assume the report to the Children's Aid Society was made with reasonable grounds or without malice before hearing evidence.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The request was filed on the applicant's behalf by the intervenor union, and the respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled April hearing dates because one of the personal respondents, who is also an applicant in a related application, would be out of the country on a business trip.

The opposing party objected, arguing the trip was scheduled after the hearing dates were set and that the delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the possibility of a business trip had been raised at a previous hearing and finding no specific prejudice to the opposing party.