HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, and reprisal by the respondent police services board and individual officers in relation to a neighbour dispute and subsequent criminal proceedings.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, even if true, did not establish a connection to a Code ground or involve the personal respondents in discriminatory conduct.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding alleged discrimination by a post-secondary institution, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Tribunal granted the complainant's request to anonymize his identity due to the highly sensitive mental health information involved.

Second, the Tribunal denied the complainant's request to call five additional witnesses, finding no legitimate excuse for the late disclosure and concluding the proposed evidence lacked relevance.

Finally, addressing the respondents' request for a contempt order due to the complainant's counsel's repeated lateness, the Tribunal noted it lacked jurisdiction to find contempt but exercised its power to control its process by issuing explicit directions requiring counsel to arrive on time and conduct himself respectfully.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related grievance filed by the applicant.

The grievance and the application both alleged a failure to accommodate the applicant's disability and sought reinstatement to full-time employment.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, deferring the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance processes routinely deal with human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file their responses by March 8, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, an employee at Wal-Mart, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status due to a schedule change that conflicted with her childcare responsibilities for her grandchild.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to anonymize her and her grandchild's names to protect the child's sensitive medical information.

The Tribunal also found that the witness statements provided by both parties did not comply with Rule 17 and ordered them to file amended statements.

The applicant, a hair stylist, went off work due to complications from pregnancy.

She provided a medical note for a brief period but failed to provide further updates on her expected return date.

After several weeks, the respondent employer issued a Record of Employment (ROE) indicating the applicant would not be returning, effectively terminating her employment.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to fulfill her part of the accommodation process by not communicating her status, the respondent discriminated against her by issuing the ROE without first seeking clarification.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied compensation for lost income due to her failure to communicate.

The applicant, an English-speaking technical support professional, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin and ancestry because bilingual (French-English) employees received a higher starting wage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that language is not a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The wage premium was paid to attract candidates with a specific skill set (French fluency) required for the work, and the applicant's lack of fluency was not inextricably linked to her place of origin or ancestry.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against his former employer, which was in receivership, and three individual respondents.

Due to a court-ordered stay of proceedings against the corporate respondent, the applicant requested to remove the corporation and proceed only against the individuals.

The Tribunal held that the stay did not apply to the individual respondents, as the applicant alleged personal liability for harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal permitted the application to continue against the individuals but refused to remove the corporate respondent, noting that doing so might prejudice the individuals if they later sought to lift the stay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The request was based solely on allegations that the adjudicator was biased and incompetent, repeating claims made in previous proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no new facts or evidence to support the allegations and noting that an adverse finding does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent physician terminated their physician-patient relationship due to the applicant's disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add another physician as a respondent, based on a statement in the respondent's reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant made no allegations against the proposed respondent that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to re-state her allegations and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the specified time.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought production of the entirety of four job competition files related to positions for which he was unsuccessful.

The respondents argued the request was overly broad and that they had already produced the arguably relevant portions.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and found that the respondents had provided the relevant documents for three of the positions.

For the fourth position, where no candidate passed, the Tribunal ordered the production of the assessment tests of the three candidates who reached the interview stage.

In an interim decision regarding an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's refusal to provide copies of its 2005, 2006, and 2007 corporate tax returns to the applicant unless the applicant paid for photocopying.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to immediately provide the copies, noting that parties are generally expected to bear the cost of providing copies of arguably relevant documents to other parties and the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was mailed.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5, and granted him 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing worsening mental health and suicidal thoughts.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rules 21.1 and 21.2 of its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had already been relocated as requested and failed to explain how a rapid hearing would alleviate her symptoms.

The request to expedite was denied as it did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend her complaint to include allegations that the discrimination led to her resignation and that the personal respondent interfered with a new job offer, finding these did not arise from the original complaint.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the production of dismissal letters of three former employees, as they were not arguably relevant to the issues in the hearing.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed two related human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services based on race, disability, and other grounds, arising from an incident where she was taken to a hospital for a mental health assessment.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be heard together given the common facts and issues.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to remove two lawyers, who acted as counsel for the institutional respondents, as personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them named personally.