HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination after her employment was terminated one month prior to her return from pregnancy leave.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act application based on the same facts.

With the applicant's consent, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the final determination of the parallel employment standards proceedings.

The applicant, who self-identifies as a gender variant person, filed an application alleging sex discrimination because the respondent employer refused to alter employment records that record information in a gender binary fashion.

The applicant requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, noting the union's support and the respondent's failure to make submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and union membership on the basis of disability and age, claiming the union appointed people to internal positions in a discriminatory manner.

The respondent union filed a Request for Order during Proceedings challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the application was out of time, and asserting the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing by conference call to receive submissions on these preliminary issues, including the potential applicability of section 6 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination by her employer dating back to 1994, including failure to hire her for tool and die positions and subsequent reprisals.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and because the matters were dealt with in another proceeding under section 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events prior to November 2004 due to delay, finding no good faith reason for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations from November 2004 onwards to proceed, finding the delay was incurred in good faith while the applicant awaited the outcome of a union grievance, and the respondents did not establish substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the remaining allegations under section 45.1, finding that a union's withdrawal of a grievance and an internal joint committee decision did not mean the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant, a child with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested an order to use and disclose the applicant's Ontario Student Record, which the Tribunal deferred as premature.

The applicant requested a publication ban and anonymization of his and his family's names to protect his privacy and prevent stigma.

The Tribunal granted the request for anonymization in its decisions but denied the publication ban, citing the fundamental importance of an open and transparent Tribunal process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code based on the respondents' behaviour in another Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal refer the Application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and defer its own proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no particular basis to refer the matter to the Commission as the applicant failed to explain why this specific Application warranted such a referral.

The respondent employer requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging employment discrimination, arguing that a grievance proceeding and a WSIB appeal had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance meeting did not conclude the grievance and the respondent provided no information on how the WSIB process was relevant to the matter.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation and advances that occurred in 2000.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application was filed nine years after the alleged incidents, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant briefly stated she lacked the confidence to deal with the allegations earlier.

The Tribunal found it could not determine if the delay was incurred in good faith based on the limited information provided and granted the applicant ten days to file additional submissions explaining the delay.

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 requested leave to withdraw his human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, 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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being barred from participating in university athletics.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the application.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The respondent employer filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to refer the application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing it is a federally-regulated entity.

The applicant confirmed she was proceeding with a federal complaint and suggested deferral.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal process.

The respondents requested an order to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, arguing it failed to establish that he had a disability or that he communicated an intent to enforce his Code rights.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that the applicant lacked a disability or that the reprisal allegations should be dismissed without an oral hearing.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A union grievance was also filed on behalf of the applicant regarding the same issues.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application or, in the alternative, a deferral.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, denied the request to dismiss because the grievance had not reached a conclusion, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application because the applicant's factual allegations regarding the withdrawal of an accommodated position lacked sufficient detail.

The adjudicator directed the applicant to provide specific facts about the necessary accommodation measures and her inability to function in the workplace within ten days, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference shortly after retaining counsel, citing the need for preparation time and language barriers.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents had known of the hearing date for five months, had failed to comply with previous Tribunal deadlines and disclosure orders, and had waited until the last minute to retain counsel.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

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

The respondent Ministry sought early dismissal, arguing the application was barred by a comprehensive release signed by the applicant and was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to participate in a telephone conference call hearing to provide oral submissions on the issues of the release and delay, including the factors of good faith and substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to provide reasonable accommodation.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance and WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the applicant's union to provide written submissions on the status of the concurrent proceedings and the appropriateness of a deferral.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, arguing that a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision did not address the core issues of the application, namely whether the applicant abandoned his employment or whether the respondent failed to accommodate him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police officers.

He brought a request for an order during proceedings to add the Chief of Police and four individual officers as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the Chief of Police on consent, noting the Chief accepts institutional responsibility.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the individual officers, finding no compelling reason to do so, as the requested remedies (including apologies) could be addressed by the institutional respondents.