HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to be removed and to add a corporate respondent.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request, failed to provide required disclosure, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction asking if she intended to proceed.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by the spouse of a client and that her employer failed to properly train her or respond to her complaints, leading to her resignation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding it had provided adequate training and responded appropriately and in a timely manner once notified.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the client's spouse, concluding that although his conduct constituted sexual solicitation, he did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Code as he was not an employer, agent, or person in a position to confer or deny a benefit to the applicant.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying complaint was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, with the last incident occurring in September 2006.

The complaint was filed in November 2007.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 complainant filed a human rights complaint against her union and its president, alleging interference with her accommodation process.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had been appropriately dealt with by a settlement agreement reached in a Grievance Settlement Board proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the settlement agreement explicitly covered only the complainant's claims against her employer and did not extend to the outstanding human rights complaint against the union and its president.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and reprisal following his termination by the respondent.

The Tribunal noted that the narrative provided did not clearly engage either ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability following her termination.

The respondent argued that a termination letter signed by the applicant constituted a full and final release barring the application.

The Tribunal found that the letter did not contain any language releasing the applicant's claims under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application.

She had emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment due to work obligations but failed to copy the respondent as directed by the Tribunal.

The respondent's representative attended the hearing and requested dismissal with costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and noted it does not have the authority to award costs.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to respond to the request for early dismissal or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to file any response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging racial discrimination in a nursing program's grade review process.

She argued that a fact-finding report from the Commission should have been provided and expressed disagreement with the Tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 and was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race by terminating his employment based on a stereotype, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the significant impact of the termination and the harmful nature of the stereotype applied.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to reasonably mitigate his losses by delaying his job search and making minimal efforts.

Consequently, the Tribunal limited the award for lost wages and benefits to a three-month period, totaling $10,517.68.

The parties had previously settled the matter, but the respondent was subsequently placed under CCAA protection, preventing the implementation of the settlement.

The Tribunal held the matter in abeyance for one year, warning that the application could be dismissed as withdrawn if the applicant did not communicate by February 5, 2010.

As the deadline passed without any communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as withdrawn.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove six individual respondents and dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the Persaud framework, the Tribunal removed all six individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant appeared to be alleging disability discrimination rather than record of offences, and ordered the applicant to provide further particulars before ruling on the jurisdictional challenge.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add her husband as a party and requesting production of a driver's abstract from the individual respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the husband, noting that a separate application with his consent was required under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The request for production was denied as premature because the Tribunal had not yet sent a Confirmation of Hearing.

The complainant filed a Request for Order to add the Chief of Police as a respondent to her human rights complaint against the police services board.

The Tribunal granted the request, with reasons to follow.

The previously scheduled hearing dates were cancelled, and a Case Conference Hearing was scheduled to determine the next steps in the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding three applications, including a transition application, a regular application, and an application for contravention of settlement.

The applicants had signed Minutes of Settlement, but subsequently filed a breach of settlement application requesting that one applicant's name and claim be removed from the Minutes.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the applications had been resolved by the settlement, whether the respondents were prepared to carry out the terms, and how the Tribunal should proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the issues were resolved through grievance settlements and prior complaints to the Commission.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process, delay, or because the substance was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police service on the basis of creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the allegations were timely and within its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found that at least some allegations occurred within the one-year limitation period and related to areas covered by the Code.

Applying the plain and obvious test, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the entire application was beyond its jurisdiction, allowing the matter to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, along with a Request to Expedite.

She alleged the respondents refused to remove slippery wax from her floor, the accessible door only worked during office hours, and the bathroom lacked a grab bar.

The respondents denied the floors were waxed, noted security staff could assist with doors, and offered to let her break her lease without penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request to Expedite, finding the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances justifying priority over other matters.