HRTO 2010

The applicant, a store manager, was seriously injured in a car accident and required a medical leave of absence.

The respondent terminated her employment after 14 days, mistakenly believing that the Employment Standards Act permitted termination once the 10 days of unpaid emergency leave were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.

The respondent was ordered to pay $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $1,170 for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in the proceedings being stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps to lift the stay.

After the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated following a workplace injury and subsequent WSIB claim.

The respondents claimed the applicant was laid off due to a lack of work prior to the injury.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence inconsistent and concluded that the applicant's injury and WSIB claim were significant factors in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, ordered the respondents to post a Human Rights Code notice, and reserved its decision on wage loss pending further evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because its substance had already been dealt with by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's reconsideration request under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Finding no new determinative facts, no denial of notice, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

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

The respondent requested access to the applicant's Occupational Health file and an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

Given the applicant's agreement to provide arguably relevant portions of the file, the Tribunal granted the respondent an extension of time to file its Response after receiving the materials from the applicant.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties and the union regarding the status of the outstanding grievances.

Finding that the grievance process had not yet concluded, the Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, with leave to renew the request within 60 days if the grievance process concludes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after her employment was terminated when her employer sold its McDonald's locations to Dendres Corporation.

The Tribunal considered whether to add Dendres Corporation as a respondent and whether the application could proceed against the specific McDonald's location.

Applying the test for adding a party, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of discriminatory refusal to rehire and negative references could support a finding of a Code violation against Dendres.

The Tribunal ordered Dendres Corporation added as a respondent and removed the McDonald's location as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination.

After failing to dial into a scheduled conference call regarding potential dismissal for delay, and failing to provide updated contact information or requested documents, the respondents requested the application be declared abandoned.

The Tribunal found the applicant had attempted to participate but misunderstood the dial-in instructions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide updated contact information, the previously requested documents, and an explanation for her failures within 10 days, failing which the application may be declared abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his request to add a police officer and police service as respondents to his human rights application alleging reprisal.

The applicant argued that submissions filed by the proposed respondents constituted an admission of intent to reprise.

The Tribunal found that the submissions did not admit intent and did not constitute new determinative evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to deem the existing respondents in default for failing to deliver their Response directly to him, as they had filed it with the Tribunal and he suffered no prejudice.

The reconsideration request was dismissed.

The applicant filed two Applications for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code against his employer and his union.

The respondents sought dismissal, arguing the applications failed to disclose a breach of settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the attached minutes appeared to relate to grievance settlements and did not specify which terms were breached.

The applicant subsequently provided signed Minutes of Settlement but did not specify the breached provisions.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on whether the applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a municipal prosecutor and a Justice of the Peace allegedly did not permit her to present her case with her infant son present.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prosecutor's actions were protected by prosecutorial immunity, which extends beyond the core elements of prosecutorial discretion to protect prosecutors from civil liability in the absence of malice.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after resigning from his employment and signing a full and final release.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress because the employer threatened to terminate him for working another job while collecting sick leave benefits.

The Tribunal found no duress, as the employer's threat of termination for fraudulent behaviour was not illegitimate pressure.

The Tribunal also found the allegations against the union related to inadequate representation, not discrimination.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was laid off after suffering a heart attack.

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 submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that removed several individuals as personal respondents from her human rights application.

The applicant, who was self-represented, argued that the individuals were members of the church's Consistory and responsible for the impugned decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's new information was known to her earlier and that she had simply omitted to provide it.

Finding no other factors that outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination pending the conclusion of a claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim had already been dismissed and no appeal had been commenced.

As there was no longer an ongoing proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer, the request for deferral was refused and the matter was directed to mediation.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had commenced a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) dealing with similar facts and issues.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the OLRB proceeding had not yet concluded.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application under s. 45 of the Code to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, noting that the OLRB proceeding was moving forward more quickly.

The applicant, a letter carrier for Canada Post, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race by his union, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that labour relations in the area of postal service are a federal undertaking pursuant to section 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Therefore, the application falls under federal jurisdiction and must be raised under the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications with overlapping facts and issues.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The Tribunal further ordered that the consolidated proceedings be held in abeyance pending the resolution of a related Transition Application involving the same parties.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was never employed by the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant alleged discrimination in respect of employment when the respondent purchased the dental practice where she previously worked and decided not to employ her due to her maternity leave.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response to the Application within ten days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation against an organizational respondent and an individual respondent.

The organizational respondent confirmed the individual respondent was no longer employed by it.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondent had not received notice of the application and ordered the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for him within 20 days if she wished to proceed against him.