HRTO 2009

The applicant, a bilingual customer service agent from Rwanda, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin after his employment was terminated.

He claimed that a series of workplace incidents, including a vacation request dispute, changes to the phone recording system, and disciplinary warnings, were motivated by his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin.

The evidence demonstrated that the termination and prior disciplinary actions were based on the applicant's poor performance, insubordination, and failure to follow instructions, including a serious customer service failure involving a major client.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against three individual respondents.

One respondent was no longer employed at the address provided by the applicant, and the Tribunal was not satisfied he had received notice.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for the unlocatable respondent within 20 days if he wished to proceed against him, noting the applicant could request an order requiring the former employer to provide contact information.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services related to the commencement of child protection proceedings.

The respondent Children's Aid Society of Toronto requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the ongoing child protection proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the parties to file submissions on the deferral request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against his former supervisor.

The respondent and the applicant were both employed by a transportation company that operated interprovincially and was federally regulated.

The Tribunal directed submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the overall context of the complaint was the employment relationship at a federally regulated employer, it lacked jurisdiction over the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that she had resolved her dispute with the respondents.

The respondents confirmed the resolution.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by police officers, the Tribunal ruled on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal held that findings of fact made by a criminal court judge in the course of acquitting the complainant could not be relied upon as binding in the human rights proceeding, as an acquittal does not establish facts for subsequent civil matters.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for witness statements taken by the complainant's criminal lawyer, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege because the proceedings were related.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the limited production of the complainants' medical records and personnel files, subject to strict privacy conditions.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against Toronto Dominion Insurance.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application was within its jurisdiction.

Finding that the employer was a federally regulated entity (TD Bank) and noting the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Tribunal concluded the employment relationship was not governed by the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging racial discrimination with respect to services at the respondent's racetrack.

They brought a request to have their applications heard together and to add two employees as personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together on consent.

The Tribunal further ordered the respondent to provide contact information for the employees so they could be given notice of the request to add them as respondents.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to add an allegation of reprisal and new personal respondents.

The applicant claimed he had previously requested this amendment from the Commission before abandoning his complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the reprisal allegations did not form part of the subject matter of the abandoned complaint and that expanding the scope would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding.

The Tribunal also addressed the respondents' request to reschedule the hearing dates, directing the applicant to advise of any prejudice that would result from moving the hearing to earlier dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to her pregnancy.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been dealt with in a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board had previously held a hearing and concluded that the decision to terminate the applicant was not tainted by her pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the issues in dispute and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision continuing to deal with the application despite potential federal jurisdiction issues.

The respondent failed to file a Response and instead sent a letter claiming to be federally regulated.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file either a full Response or a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) setting out its jurisdictional arguments by March 20, 2009.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated due to his taking a six-week sick leave.

In this interim decision on a production request, the Tribunal considered the respondent's submissions despite being filed one day late.

The Tribunal found the applicant's request for the names, contact information, and sick leave records of all employees hired, promoted, demoted, or terminated in 2005 and 2006 to be overbroad.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce anonymized data regarding the employment status and sick leave history of technical and supervisory employees affected by the restructuring initiative.

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

The respondents provided correspondence evidencing the applicant's intent to withdraw the application following a full and final release.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's notice.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant, a resident of a condominium, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and family status regarding the use of shared recreational facilities, specifically age restrictions and limited 'family swim' hours for the pool.

The Tribunal found that while the current family swim hours were not discriminatory, the respondents' historical practices—including more restrictive hours, raising the unaccompanied access age, and promoting the building as 'adult lifestyle'—created an unwelcoming environment that violated the Human Rights Code.

The reprisal and age discrimination claims were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 in general damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, while also having commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw her application without prejudice.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to properly deliver her request to withdraw to the respondents and setting a schedule for the respondents' response and the applicant's reply.

The respondent requested that six applications alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability be consolidated or heard together.

The Tribunal deferred considering the request until the respondent filed its remaining responses to the applications, directing it to do so by a specified date.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests by the complainant and the Commission for the production of records relating to other complaints of racial discrimination against the personal respondents, who are civilian court officers.

Applying the principles from a concurrent decision, the Tribunal ordered the records produced to the Tribunal for review prior to disclosure to balance probative value against privacy interests.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of officer badge numbers and a photograph of the complainant, but declined to order the production of correctional officers' names due to security concerns.

The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.

The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.

The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.

To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.

The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss an application alleging racial discrimination in a hiring process, arguing it failed to set out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had surpassed the low threshold for establishing a prima facie case on the face of his complaint, which shifted the evidentiary burden to the respondent.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request to strike paragraphs from the applicant's statement of additional facts, accepting that they were intended as circumstantial evidence rather than new allegations.

The respondent's motions were denied and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

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

He also filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the respondent union.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the deferral request.