HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date due to an unforeseen work conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments after the initial ten-day rescheduling period are only granted in extraordinary circumstances, which a work conflict does not constitute.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status, as well as reprisal, after an executive search firm did not select him for an interview for a senior hospital human resources position.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found no factual basis to suggest the respondents' decision was related to the applicant's sexual orientation or marital status, noting the respondents were unaware of these characteristics when they initially rejected his candidacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant filed an application alleging she was terminated as a reprisal for complaining about gender discrimination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed, arguing it was substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal refused the request to dismiss, finding no evidence of any previous OHRC complaint, and directed the respondents to file a complete response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to his employment termination in 2003.

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

The applicant conceded he was defeated on the timeline issue and explained the delay was due to stress and ignorance of his rights.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay that would establish it was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment as a truck driver for the respondent.

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

The Tribunal found that the respondent's business involves transportation between countries and the applicant's work involved trucking outside of Ontario.

As such, the respondent is a federally-regulated business under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had filed a concurrent civil claim for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not explicitly or implicitly raise the Code or seek remedies for alleged breaches of the Code.

The request for early dismissal was refused, and the respondents were directed to file a full Response.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated, tore his Achilles tendon while receiving salary continuation under a settlement agreement.

He requested short-term disability benefits, which the respondent school denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, arguing he was treated differently than other injured employees.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the difference in treatment was not due to the applicant's injury, but rather his status as an employee working under a termination agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, seeking accommodation regarding his shift schedule.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral and requested that the proceedings be expedited.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no urgent circumstances, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to address human rights issues.

The applicant, a recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged that the deduction of his Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPP-D) benefits at a rate of 100%, compared to the 50% deduction rate for employment earnings, constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to show differential treatment on a prohibited ground.

Because all ODSP recipients are persons with disabilities, the differential treatment of income sources did not have a differential impact on the applicant compared to persons with other disabilities or without disabilities.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging age discrimination in employment.

She argued procedural unfairness, including the Tribunal's failure to adjudicate wrongful dismissal and family status claims, and the admission of un-subpoenaed respondent witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and raise issues not included in her original application.

The applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a complaint was outside its jurisdiction because it was not referred before the statutory deadline.

The Commission argued the decision must be correct on jurisdictional questions, denied natural justice, and misapprehended material facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case, and that the Commission's administrative oversight in failing to communicate the referral before December 31, 2008, meant the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

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

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file a Response but failed to do so by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to the matter proceeding without them, and granted a final 14-day period to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin by a teacher and the school board.

The school board requested that the application be dismissed against it, arguing it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal denied this request, finding that vicarious liability could not be determined without a full evidentiary record.

The teacher requested that the application be deferred or dismissed due to a resolved grievance and a concluded Ontario College of Teachers complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because the other proceedings were no longer ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the teacher's request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant, a former car sales representative, alleged that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against by her manager on the basis of sex, marital status, and association, and that she was subjected to reprisal after complaining.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was unsupported by other witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's actions, including setting sales targets, were a legitimate response to the applicant's poor sales performance and were untainted by discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who is of Korean descent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability against his former employer and its principals, who are of Chinese descent.

The applicant claimed he was treated differently regarding the extension of credit to customers and subjected to discriminatory remarks.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations, concluding that the workplace conflicts stemmed from non-discriminatory business disagreements, particularly the applicant's failure to follow the employer's cash-only policy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, over a year after her termination.

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed late and the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued that mental health issues prevented her from filing on time and from understanding the release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions and evidence on whether the application should be dismissed due to the delay and the signed release.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and sex, related to her suspension and subsequent termination after taking pregnancy and parental leave.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant's employment was terminated, or at the latest when she should have reasonably discovered it at the end of her leave.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as she failed to contact the respondent for nearly two and a half years after her suspension and showed willful blindness.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a law professor, sought an interim remedy to suspend the university's search for a new Dean pending the resolution of her human rights application alleging race and sex discrimination in the previous search process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of harm favoured the university, which would suffer significant detriment without a permanent Dean.

The Tribunal also noted that the appointment of a new Dean would not necessarily preclude the applicant from being instated to the position if her application ultimately succeeded.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated while he was off work.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant signed a release settling the matter with the corporate respondent but sought to continue the application against the personal respondent.

At the hearing, the corporate respondent's counsel requested a last-minute adjournment by telephone, which the Tribunal denied due to an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal reviewed the release and found its plain language barred the applicant from continuing the application against both the corporate respondent and its officers or employees, including the personal respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former employer terminated his employment because of two workplace injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the employer had any knowledge of the alleged injuries prior to his termination.

As the employer was unaware of the injuries, they could not have been a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

The application was dismissed.