HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and an adjudicator regarding a decision to uphold a time extension for a freedom of information request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the content, reasons, and result of a statutory decision-maker's decision do not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent Shoppers Drug Mart requested orders prohibiting the self-represented applicant from communicating with its employees, attending its premises, and requiring him to conduct himself courteously.

The applicant had sent harassing emails, used fictitious and insulting names for individual respondents, and copied Tribunal members directly.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant general injunctive relief regarding the applicant's attendance at premises or general communications.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file a new application without insulting names, direct all communications through the Registrar and respondent's counsel, and maintain courteous conduct, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, Canada Post Corporation, alleging discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business.

The applicant argued that the respondent operates in Ontario and human rights should not be subject to jurisdictional limits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that postal service is a federal undertaking under the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) discriminated against her on the basis of disability, sex, and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to challenge the outcome of an adjudicative process, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while a statutory decision-making process is a service under the Code, the content and result of the decision are not.

However, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was entirely outside its jurisdiction and directed the applicant to file a detailed statement clarifying her allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex after the Law Society suspended her licence to practise law following a capacity hearing.

The respondents requested dismissal on various preliminary grounds, including delay, statutory immunity, and that the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant also raised a conflict of interest regarding counsel for one of the respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the alleged conflict of interest, clarification of the timeline of events, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the personal respondent who acted as counsel for the Law Society.

The applicant failed to dial in to a scheduled summary hearing teleconference.

After waiting half an hour past the scheduled start time, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned, in accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice for non-attendance.

The applicant, a technical support worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was pressured during a sick leave and subsequently terminated.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to the applicant's lack of credibility and alleged fraudulent conduct.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanations to be unsupported and pretextual.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the termination and other differential treatment, including requiring him to pay benefits premiums while on leave and demanding references post-probation.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $38,400 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when he was denied sick pay during a lawful strike.

The applicant had agreed to delay his sick leave to assist the respondent, but the strike commenced on the day his leave began.

The Tribunal held that the denial of sick pay was due to the collective agreement not being in effect during the strike, not the applicant's disability.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for failing to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association, discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her and instead negotiating a severance agreement with her employer.

The union requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing that the settlement agreement fully resolved the applicant's employment issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had agreed to the severance of her employment in exchange for monetary compensation, thereby settling her accommodation claims.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age with respect to services provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

She alleged that WSIB staff made discriminatory comments about her age and arthritis, and that the WSIB failed to ensure her employer provided appropriate modified work.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged comments to be vague and preferring the credible evidence of the WSIB staff.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the WSIB failed to ensure appropriate accommodations or that any alleged failure was connected to a Code-protected ground.

The applicant, a radiation therapist, took a leave of absence due to breast cancer and subsequent physical and psychological complications.

She alleged that her employer, Hamilton Health Sciences, discriminated against her by denying her health benefits and failing to accommodate her disability by providing alternate work outside of the cancer care environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant's conditions constituted a disability under the Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the employer had fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship by extensively searching for suitable alternate positions over several years, which were ultimately unsuccessful due to the applicant's specific restrictions and lack of transferable skills.

The applicant filed two applications against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and an Interim Decision directing the applicant to file written submissions regarding delay and previous human rights complaints.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and did not file submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The respondent objected to the applicants' statements of additional facts, arguing they improperly expanded the scope of the original human rights complaints.

The Tribunal found that the additional facts, which included pre- and post-complaint events and details regarding health conditions developed as a result of the respondent's alleged conduct, merely provided additional details or supported claims for remedy without expanding the scope of the applications.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file responses to these allegations and set out the order of proceedings for the upcoming hearing.

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

The applicant sought to amend the application to add further examples of reprisal, while the respondents sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to amend, finding the new allegations were a continuation of the original narrative and did not require an amendment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the personal respondent's individual conduct was a central issue in the case.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of goods, services, or facilities.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including the application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions seeking submissions from the parties, but the applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the application had been abandoned and dismissed it.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the personal respondent, Angela Longo, from the human rights proceedings following her death.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and determined that there was no longer a compelling reason to keep her estate as a party.

The corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for her actions and had the capacity to provide any remedy, while potential remedies against the personal respondent, such as training, were no longer applicable.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant, a Black teacher, filed human rights complaints against his school board, his union (OSSTF), and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging racial discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents OSSTF and the College requested the dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations against the school board and OSSTF for falling outside the one-year limitation period, finding the applicant's bald assertion of fear of reprisal insufficient to establish good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applications against OSSTF and the College entirely, finding that their communications regarding the applicant's representation did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The application against the school board was permitted to continue regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The applicant sought remedies following a previous Tribunal decision that found a co-worker's comments constituted harassment and created a poisoned work environment based on sex, marital status, and family status.

The applicant requested $40,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, as well as an apology from the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal awarded $1,500 in compensation, noting the violation involved two comments over a short period without supporting medical evidence of severe impact.

The Tribunal declined to order an apology or public interest remedies, finding the corporate respondent had already taken appropriate steps, including requiring the co-worker to attend sensitivity training.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against First Nations and Inuit Health – Health Canada and individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondents appeared to be federally regulated.

The applicant subsequently confirmed that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had accepted jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking production of apprenticeship and qualification certificates for numerous General Motors employees.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that documents relating to untimely allegations were irrelevant.

For the 19 employees hired during the relevant period, the respondents had already produced the available documentation and could not be ordered to produce documents that no longer exist.