HRTO 2009

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for his perceived participation as a witness in a human rights complaint filed by another employee, and that he was subjected to a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of reprisal.

However, the respondents provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination, specifically that the applicant had falsified time records to pay employees for time they were not physically at the plant.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the allegation of a poisoned work environment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted that the applications involved virtually identical facts and raised similar legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation and directed the parties to provide available dates.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested dismissal due to delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to determine whether the application is barred by the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by a hospital and the Office of the Chief Coroner following the death of a family member.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that the application be delivered to the two named corporate respondents, as other respondents were inadequately identified.

The Tribunal also directed that a case management conference be scheduled to address preliminary issues, including the proper naming of parties, timeliness, and the relationship between the respondents and the allegations.

The respondents in a human rights application brought a request for orders during the proceeding, seeking disclosure of the applicant's medical, hospital, and occupational health records, as well as tax records, particulars, and the striking of certain paragraphs from the applicant's statement of additional facts.

The Tribunal proposed bifurcating the hearing to deal with liability before remedy and deferred ruling on remedy-related disclosure requests.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of relevant occupational health records regarding the applicant's pregnancy accommodation but denied the broader requests for medical and hospital records.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide particulars for certain allegations but refused to strike paragraphs from her statement of additional facts, finding they provided background rather than improperly expanding the complaint.

The respondents requested to defer the applicant's human rights application until her union grievances, which included allegations of Code violations based on the same facts, were concluded.

The applicant wished to proceed with the application, but the union would not drop the grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, as it involved the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent five days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing a complaint based on the same facts was previously filed with the Commission.

The applicant opposed the request, providing a letter indicating the Commission file was closed as withdrawn.

To assist in resolving the early dismissal request, the Tribunal directed the Commission to provide a statement of facts regarding the processing and apparent withdrawal of the prior complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) discriminated against him on the basis of disability during its adjudicative process.

The respondent raised jurisdictional objections, arguing that the IPC's decision-making process is privileged and beyond the Code's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacks the authority to hear appeals from or substantively review the final decisions of other statutory tribunals, and the applicant failed to plead facts that would give rise to remedies within the Tribunal's power.

The applicant filed a human rights application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program, requesting deferral pending an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.

Noting that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred to the Tribunal and were proceeding under a lead case approach, the adjudicator ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases.

The application was suspended accordingly.

The applicant alleged he experienced a poisoned work environment due to incessant racial name calling by co-workers.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged name calling to be vague and unconvincing.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his work environment was poisoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker and discrimination by her employer and union in their response.

The applicant sought to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal, which the Tribunal granted.

The union requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal employer investigation and a potential complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board constituted other proceedings that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal employer investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1 and that the mere possibility of another avenue is not a basis for dismissal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of record of offences, challenging a court order that prohibited him from representing himself as an engineer without being licensed by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that under the Human Rights Code, discrimination based on record of offences applies only to employment.

Furthermore, the applicant did not allege discrimination in employment nor did he meet the statutory definition of having a record of offences.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 5 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rule 25.5 of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant raised new factual allegations, but the Tribunal found they were not relevant to the issues determined in the original decision and could have been disclosed earlier.

Finding no grounds that outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of sex by suspending her from a psychosocial rehabilitation centre clubhouse and subjecting her to derogatory name-calling.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was suspended due to a documented history of disruptive and inappropriate behaviour, including assaulting another individual and repeatedly pursuing a staff member, rather than her sex.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the alleged name-calling occurred at an unrelated drop-in centre over which the respondents had no control.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' following his dismissal after a medical leave of absence.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether he had a 'record of offences' within the meaning of the Code, but no submissions were received.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's narrative did not allege discrimination on the basis of a record of offences or disability, and therefore dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the union be added as a respondent and argued the application should be dismissed for delay.

The union opposed being added as a party but requested to intervene.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to address the preliminary issues of delay, the addition of the union as a respondent, and the union's request to intervene.