HRTO 2010

The applicant filed human rights complaints against Kelly Services and IBM.

IBM requested early dismissal, arguing the complaint against it was not 'filed' with the Commission before the June 30, 2008 transition deadline.

The Tribunal reviewed the Commission's file and found that the applicant had submitted a new signed page 1 naming IBM, which the Commission treated as a properly filed complaint prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was filed in time and deferred IBM's request for early dismissal based on delay in service to a future hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against Kelly Services and IBM.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether the complaint against IBM was 'filed' with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to the June 30, 2008 transition deadline under section 53 of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the Commission's files and practices, the Tribunal found that the Commission had treated the complaint as filed when the applicant submitted a new signed page one listing IBM as a responding party in April 2007.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was filed prior to the deadline and could be continued as a transition application.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was given a final deadline to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by his employer for failing to facilitate his return to work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of ongoing grievance proceedings based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider an earlier interim decision granting the union intervener status, and granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding significant overlap between the application and the grievances.

The applicant, who is of Portuguese descent, alleged she was subjected to workplace harassment and discriminatory termination by her employer and lead-hand.

The personal respondent repeatedly referred to the applicant as 'Pork Chop' and made derogatory comments about her accent.

The Tribunal found the personal respondent's testimony lacked credibility and concluded she engaged in a course of vexatious conduct based on the applicant's ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held the corporate respondent vicariously liable for the harassment and found that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment was tainted by the personal respondent's discriminatory attitude.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed allegations against the respondents due to delay.

The applicant argued that the hearing procedure was unfair, that the Vice-chair improperly assessed evidence, and that the Vice-chair's conduct demonstrated bias.

The Tribunal found that the hearing procedure was consistent with its rules and mandate to adopt flexible procedures.

The Tribunal also held that the Vice-chair's questioning of the unrepresented applicant did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration and the request to remove the Vice-chair from further proceedings were denied.

The applicant, a migrant farm worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status, race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and ancestry, more than a year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to threats of repatriation by the respondent and his social and political exclusion as a migrant worker.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal and discrimination on several grounds.

The applicant later requested to amend the application to proceed only on the ground of disability, and to withdraw the application against certain respondents.

As the remaining respondents did not oppose the requests, the Tribunal granted the orders, striking the other grounds and removing the specified respondents from the proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to a date beyond the standard 12-week rescheduling period, citing disability-related reasons supported by medical evidence.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to provide alternative dates in June 2011.

The applicant, a labourer/driver, alleged that his employer made crude and offensive comments of a sexual nature on his last day of work, constituting sexual harassment.

He further alleged that his subsequent termination was a reprisal for not responding to the advance.

The Tribunal found that the offensive remarks were made and constituted sexual harassment, awarding $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

However, the Tribunal found no evidentiary link between the harassment and the termination of employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability against his former WSIB representative.

The applicant brought several preliminary requests, including to substitute the individual representative as the respondent, to add reprisal as a ground based on a defamation claim filed against him, and to add the WSIB as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the substitution but denied the other requests, noting that court pleadings are protected by absolute privilege and cannot constitute a reprisal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant alleged negligence and fraud but failed to link the respondent's conduct to his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal nearly 20 months after her termination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the limitation period should start from when she discovered the alleged discriminatory reason for her termination during an Employment Standards Act meeting.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the facts giving rise to the alleged breach at the time of her discipline and termination, and that the discoverability doctrine does not exist to allow aggrieved persons to delay making a claim to gather evidence.

The application was dismissed as out of time with no good faith reason for the delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions regarding jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond within the required 30-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on his disability (multiple chemical sensitivity).

While accommodation issues were previously addressed in a grievance arbitration, the Tribunal heard allegations that the applicant's Superintendent harassed him after the applicant reported the Superintendent for smoking in the workplace, and that the employer and union failed to investigate.

Applying the Faryna v. Chorny test for credibility, the adjudicator found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable and inconsistent with the preponderance of probabilities.

The applications were dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence supporting the allegations of harassment or the reporting of such harassment to management or the union.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the applicant had already pursued a civil claim involving the same parties, facts, and human rights allegations, which had been dismissed and the subsequent appeal stayed.

The Tribunal found that the civil court had finally determined the issue and that the applicant failed to seek leave to appeal the stay order in time.

The application was dismissed as barred under section 34(11)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment, intimidation, and bullying.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement raising the same human rights issues.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

During the hearing, after presenting his evidence-in-chief, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the remaining respondent.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave.

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

The personal respondents named the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as an additional respondent.

The WSIB filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed as a party.

Applying the Smyth factors, and noting that the applicant made no allegations and sought no remedy against the WSIB, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the WSIB as a respondent.

Following a finding that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his record of offences, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to prepare a remedy plan promoting future compliance.

The respondent submitted a plan including a hiring practices manual, staff training, and policy amendments.

The Tribunal reviewed the plan, found it met the required criteria, and ordered its adoption and implementation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to illness, supported by a doctor's letter.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's illness constituted extraordinary circumstances under its scheduling guidelines.

The applicant was directed to provide unavailable dates by February 28, 2011, and document disclosure deadlines were extended.