HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code on November 27, 2008, based on a complaint dated September 9, 2008.

The Tribunal directed written submissions on jurisdiction.

Section 53(3) only applies to complaints filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

Since the underlying complaint was dated September 9, 2008, it was not filed prior to June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to accept the application and dismissed it.

The respondents requested a confidentiality order to protect the business records of the corporate respondent, seeking restrictions on copying, disclosure, and retention of the documents.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted that the Notice of Case Resolution Conference already restricts the use of disclosed materials to the proceedings.

Finding no submissions to support the need for greater protection, the Tribunal declined to issue the requested orders.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and requested that the matter be dealt with on an expedited basis.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would distinguish the application from other cases before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring whether he intended to pursue the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 10 days to confirm his intention to proceed, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and services on the grounds of disability and age.

Both parties agreed to defer the proceeding until grievances filed on behalf of the applicant have been dealt with in accordance with the collective agreement.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal for a prior complaint, relating to events before and during her maternity leave.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests for an interim remedy to be paid full-time wages pending the outcome, to expedite the proceedings, and to consolidate the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to provide the required signed declarations and that the balance of convenience did not favour the extraordinary relief.

The Tribunal also denied the requests to expedite and consolidate, noting the lack of significant evidentiary overlap and the prejudice to respondents who were not parties to both applications.

The applicant requested an order requiring the respondent to provide the last known contact information for two former employees named as personal respondents in a human rights complaint.

The respondent did not object but required a Tribunal order to release the personal information.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested contact information within 10 days.

The respondents filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding they had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal.

The request listed nine alleged errors of fact and law but failed to provide reasons, submissions, or address the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for failing to comply with the Rules and failing to provide any basis to justify reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the ground of disability, along with a request to expedite due to the impending closure of the corporate respondent's facility.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide information about its ongoing operations and assets in Ontario to assess the risk of flight.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide a status update on related grievances and a duty of fair representation application to determine whether the human rights application should be deferred.

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application after the applicant failed to comply with a prior Tribunal direction to provide particulars and documents by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, instead granting the applicant one final opportunity to file the required materials and a written explanation for the delay, and setting a revised schedule for the upcoming case resolution conference.

The applicant filed a new human rights application that overlapped with an existing proceeding scheduled for a preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal directed that the new application be brought before it at the upcoming hearing to determine the appropriate manner of proceeding, given its relationship to the other file and complaints.

The respondent was not required to file a response at this time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding changes to the calculation of her retirement allowance.

The respondents raised the preliminary issue of delay, as the application was filed more than six years after the applicant's retirement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide written submissions and any supporting medical evidence to determine the preliminary issue of timeliness and delay.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination by his employer and a personal respondent regarding a promotion competition, workplace transfers, training, and various comments made by management.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's manager made discriminatory comments about Jamaican and Caribbean employees, that management failed to investigate these comments, and that the applicant's transfer out of his workplace was racially motivated.

The remaining allegations, including all claims against the personal respondent, were dismissed.

The matter was bifurcated, with remedies to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against his supervisor at Bell Canada.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Bell Canada is a federally regulated enterprise.

The Tribunal found that because Bell Canada is subject to federal regulation, the employment relationship and the allegations against the supervisor fall within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an objection to an earlier interim decision that deferred his human rights application pending the conclusion of two union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, noting that the Human Rights Code and the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure do not contemplate an objection process for interim decisions, and reconsideration powers apply only to final decisions.

The applicant must wait until the grievances conclude before requesting to proceed.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application, arguing they are a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant requested a deferral of the provincial application while he pursued a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding it the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as determining the jurisdictional issue would require further submissions and would not bind the federal commission.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and claimed WSIB benefits.

When he was cleared to return to work with restrictions, the respondent employer claimed no modified work was available.

When the applicant was later cleared for regular duties, the employer refused to take him back, claiming a lack of work, despite having hired a replacement.

The Tribunal found the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's disability and terminated his employment because of his disability-related absence, in breach of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded lost wages and general damages.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing and services on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 request.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The corporate respondent advised it could not accept service for one of the personal respondents, Paul Boyd, as he no longer worked there.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to serve him directly or advise if she wished to withdraw against him.

The applicant advised she did not wish to proceed against Mr. Boyd.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against Mr. Boyd.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment.

The respondents asserted the applicant was terminated for repeatedly violating a workplace rule prohibiting attendance under the influence of alcohol.

The Tribunal found that while the respondents suspected an alcohol problem and offered assistance, the applicant denied having a disability and refused accommodation.

The Tribunal concluded the respondents met their duty to accommodate and dismissed the application.