HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against a lawyer who had previously represented him and later represented his former spouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the allegations regarding the respondent's actions as opposing counsel did not raise an issue of discrimination in services.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant tenant alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin, and engaged in reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's failure to provide proper notice of a rent increase, delay in repairing his unit after construction damage, and failure to pay interest on his last month's rent deposit.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the rent increase notice issue was an administrative error, the interest payment policy was applied equally to all tenants, and there was no evidence linking the repair delay to Code-protected grounds.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the required elements were not met.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated while on medical leave.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding that the arbitrator's awards focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient medical documentation and did not appropriately address whether the employer could have accommodated the applicant's disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant, a Black woman and long-serving employee, alleged racial discrimination when she was unsuccessful in a competition for a Group Leader position, which was awarded to a White woman with less seniority.

She also alleged reprisal based on comments made by her manager regarding her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its decision based on the candidates' performance in a structured interview process.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the reprisal allegation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Small Claims Court wrongful dismissal claim against the corporate respondent.

The applicant indicated the civil claim was settled but acknowledged that final documents to officially close the case had not yet been filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate as premature, noting it cannot consider the request until the Small Claims Court matter is officially concluded.

The applicant alleged she experienced discrimination based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and colour when she was cut from the university's varsity women's ice hockey team.

The Tribunal found that the coach's decisions, including suggesting the applicant play field hockey, missing a summer meeting, and cutting her from the team, were based on objective criteria such as the applicant's hockey skills and physical development, rather than discriminatory motives.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by her supervisor and the police service.

The personal respondent requested dismissal for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred more than a year prior, and alternatively sought deferral pending a Police Services Act disciplinary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the applicant alleged a continuing series of reprisal incidents.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, noting the disciplinary hearing would not address all allegations or Code issues, but briefly held the application in abeyance to allow the personal respondent to prepare for his disciplinary hearing.

The police association was granted intervenor status.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, asking the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to decline to accept the applicant's Reply because it was filed four days late.

The Tribunal found no good reason to grant the request, even assuming the Reply was filed beyond the deadline.

The request was denied and the Reply was accepted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Human Rights Tribunal decision, alleging procedural flaws including bias, failure to accommodate a disability, and erroneous findings of fact.

The Tribunal reviewed the seven alleged flaws and found that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue his case and disagreeing with the adjudicator's assessment of the evidence.

Finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued two Notices of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination or allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to either Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against her employer, which was in receivership, and several individual respondents.

The court-appointed Receiver requested early dismissal, arguing the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Superior Court Receivership Order.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the individual respondents primarily concerned their acts as agents or employees of the organizational respondent, and proceeding would violate the Receivership Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications could not proceed without leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination application against a mental health service.

She alleged new evidence regarding coerced drug use and a breach of a sealing order by the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the allegations did not constitute new evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the merits of the original decision.

The applicant filed requests for accommodation at her upcoming hearing, an order precluding a respondent from relying on undisclosed documents, and anonymization of her name.

The Tribunal granted the accommodation request, limiting hearing days to two hours on non-consecutive days based on medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request to preclude the respondent's participation, finding no basis for such a severe order, and denied the anonymization request as there was no sufficient reason to depart from the standard practice of identifying adult parties.

The Tribunal also set out the case management process for the bifurcated hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents intimidated employees into attending work when sick.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the determination of an ongoing policy grievance regarding the attendance assistance program.

The Union requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues and facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and the termination of her benefits.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant and her union were pursuing concurrent grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that proceeding with the application would create concurrent proceedings and risk inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could request the application proceed once the grievances were resolved.

The applicant, a male-to-female transgendered person, requested an order to use the pseudonym 'XY' and a partial publication ban to protect her identity during Tribunal proceedings.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that anonymization and a limited publication ban were necessary to protect the applicant's privacy, prevent potential social stigma, and ensure the accessibility and fairness of the human rights system.

The respondent university brought a request for orders during proceedings in a human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to rely on late-disclosed documents and a tape recording, noting the applicant had already been granted multiple extensions and failed to explain the recording's relevance.

The Tribunal permitted a respondent witness residing in Costa Rica to testify by conference call.

Finally, applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individual employees as personal respondents, finding the corporate respondent university would be liable for their conduct.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisals in her employment with Revenue Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federal government department.

The applicant filed written submissions but did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent falls under federal jurisdiction and is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, not the provincial Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisals by her professional association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated entity.

The applicant's written submissions did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally regulated enterprise and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he was waiting on Legal Aid, witnesses, and documents.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing and time to prepare, and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.