HRTO 2010

The respondents requested early dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred by s. 34(11) and s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek Code remedies, and the civil proceeding was not yet concluded.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the civil litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex against her former employer, Chrysler, and its disability benefits administrator, Manulife.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Manulife, finding the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against Chrysler at this preliminary stage, as there was a factual dispute regarding when the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred.

The respondents requested an order to remove the personal respondents from the proceeding and sought other case management directions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the personal respondents, finding that the allegations against them could potentially give rise to personal liability and remedial orders.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file a statement of additional facts to clarify the relevance of voluminous materials submitted, and set a deadline for submissions on whether the proceeding should be deferred pending an academic misconduct appeal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he did not receive notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that intervening correspondence and the applicant's failure to receive a Case Assessment Direction created confusion about whether the hearing would proceed.

Concluding that the applicant did not receive proper notice through no fault of his own, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the respondents' outstanding request for an order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of citizenship, ethnic origin, and other grounds, culminating in his termination in 2004.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis of delay, prior settlement, and that the substance was dealt with in a prior arbitration.

The Tribunal found that raising the 2003 discipline was an abuse of process due to a prior settlement, and that failing to raise the discrimination allegations during the arbitration and waiting three years to file the application constituted an abuse of process and a delay not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a high school student with learning disabilities, alleged that the school board failed to accommodate his special needs and discriminated against him by imposing two suspensions without properly accounting for his disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the school board had implemented appropriate accommodations, including an Individual Education Plan, and had properly considered the applicant's special needs during the investigation and discipline process for both suspensions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal by the Toronto District School Board and several personal respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents from the proceeding.

Applying established Tribunal jurisprudence, the adjudicator found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, noting that the corporate respondent was named, there was no issue regarding its vicarious liability, and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

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

The original decision found that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences' under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that human rights legislation should be given a large and liberal interpretation.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the statutory definition of 'record of offences' is explicit and cannot be expanded, and that the applicant failed to meet the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by police officers during an incident on December 26, 2008.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a similar complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the OCCPS complaint dealt with the identical facts and issues, and deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the prescribed time, despite acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to confirm the respondent's address and granting the respondent 5 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

A case management conference call was held to determine the remaining issues in dispute and the procedures for addressing them.

The complainant agreed that certain previously identified issues were no longer relevant.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of a one-day hearing in London, Ontario, and set deadlines for outstanding production requests and the submission of suggested hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services and requested expedited proceedings, claiming the respondents planned to destroy a videotape of the incident.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the applicant's allegations of evidence destruction to be speculative.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had already referenced the video in their own reports and that destruction of relevant records after receiving notice could result in a negative inference at a hearing.

The applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Fred Albi.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and his union.

The union respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that while there was overlap, the application raised allegations against the union itself (including inadequate representation and complicity with the employer) that could not be remedied through the grievance process.

The respondents were directed to file their responses.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and harassment.

They argued the matter was already dealt with by the OLRB, was untimely, and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the OLRB only addressed the union's duty of fair representation, the complaint was filed within the one-year time limit, and the factual disputes regarding the applicant's resignation and accommodation required a full hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of delay.

She submitted new facts and evidence, including medical records and personal recollections, arguing they were determinative of her case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence related to the merits of the case and failed to address the issue of delay, which was the sole basis for the original dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on multiple grounds during a police interview involving a translator, which led to criminal charges and her eventual conviction.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the allegations of discrimination were specifically raised and dealt with by the trial judge during the criminal proceeding, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and dismissed the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the applicant had previously filed a Small Claims Court action regarding the same facts, which was dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the civil claim was dismissed as abandoned, the court did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance process involving the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, consistent with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings.

The applicant, a 49-year-old municipal employee with 26 years of service, alleged age discrimination when a younger candidate was selected over him for an Arena Manager position.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation that the successful candidate was more qualified due to recent management courses and better interview performance.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's emphasis on educational qualifications was not a pretext for age discrimination and dismissed the application.