HRTO 2010

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the issues were appropriately dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondents' request and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file written submissions.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, arguing under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code that the applicant had an ongoing civil claim for wrongful dismissal arising from the same events.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not explicitly or implicitly raise Code issues or seek Code remedies, and the application raised systemic issues not addressed in the civil action.

The request for early dismissal was denied, but the application was deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding on consent of both parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and several universities.

He requested an interim remedy ordering LSAC not to communicate a misconduct hearing decision to any law schools pending the outcome of his application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had already provided the misconduct decision to the respondent law schools himself, making the requested remedy ineffective.

The Tribunal also found that an interim remedy was not necessary to further the remedial purposes of the Code, as a full and effective remedy could be ordered at the end of the hearing if discrimination is found.

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

The respondent employer sought to defer the application because the facts and issues were the same as those in an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting its general practice to defer when concurrent legal proceedings raise the same human rights issues before a decision-maker with authority to resolve them.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging disability-based discrimination in employment.

He argued the Tribunal failed to consider his reprisal claim and all facts in the case file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the reprisal allegations were appropriately dealt with as discrimination claims, and that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case without presenting new, determinative evidence as required by Rule 25.5.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a misconduct investigation under the Police Services Act and a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the misconduct investigation was only at the investigation stage and focused on alleged misconduct rather than human rights issues, and the grievance was being held in abeyance.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that it be deferred pending the resolution of an ongoing criminal matter involving the applicant.

The respondents objected to the request but submitted that if deferred, it should also await the conclusion of another Tribunal matter involving the same incidents.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the criminal proceeding, the other Tribunal matter, and this application overlap, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of both the criminal court proceeding and the other Tribunal matter.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions on liability and remedy, and to indicate whether she wished to proceed in writing or attend an oral hearing.

The complainant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court against the respondent Ministry for failing to disclose documents.

The Ministry objected to the intervenor union (OPSEU) participating in the contempt motion, arguing it fell outside the scope of their limited intervenor standing.

The Tribunal ruled that OPSEU may make submissions, as the alleged refusal to implement systemic remedies directly impacts its members and the union can provide valuable perspective on the Ministry-wide impact of the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued he relied on his union's advice and reiterated previous arguments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no new facts, conflict with jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment, claiming his non-economic loss benefit was calculated based on his age at the time of his workplace accident.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board requested the application be dismissed, arguing that section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 permits age-based distinctions despite the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that section 2.1 of the Act exempts age-based distinctions from review under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to address procedural issues following a decision on the merits.

The applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondents, as the allegations concerned actions taken in the course of their employment.

The corporate respondent requested a deferral of the Tribunal proceedings pending the outcome of the applicant's reactivated WSIB claim.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that while there was potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal proceeding was significantly more advanced than the WSIB claim.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to differential treatment and harassment in the course of his employment on the basis of his place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry, and that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and that there was no evidence to support his allegations of discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal also found that the respondents were unaware of the human rights complaint until after the applicant's termination, which was due to performance issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an adjudicator at the Landlord and Tenant Board failed to accommodate her hearing loss during a proceeding.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's actions, including the management of the proceeding and decisions regarding cross-examination, fell within his adjudicative function.

As such, the adjudicator and the institutional respondents were protected by adjudicative immunity, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that another proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions in response to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

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

Prior to the application, the applicant's union filed a grievance regarding his termination, which was dismissed by an arbitrator.

The union subsequently commenced an application for judicial review of the arbitration award.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process or deferred pending the judicial review.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, noting that the outcome of the court process could affect the consideration of the request to dismiss.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against his former employer, related individuals, and two benefits providers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against certain respondents.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the benefits providers (J&D Benefits Inc. and Industrial Alliance) as there was no employment relationship or alleged discriminatory acts by them.

The application was permitted to proceed against the remaining corporate and personal respondents.

The applicant, an administrative assistant, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of age.

She claimed that her supervisors considered her 'too old' and 'too slow', denied her training opportunities, attempted to replace her with younger volunteers, and failed to assist her with long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The evidence demonstrated that the employer's actions, including requesting her date of birth after a job offer and assigning her tasks such as preparing food for meetings, were not discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be out of time and the subject of a civil proceeding, and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and age brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of documents from the applicant.

The applicant had failed to provide witness lists, document lists, or respond to the respondent's request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately disclose documents related to his job search efforts, income, and mitigation of damages, noting that the standard for disclosure is arguable relevance.