HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (Parkinson's disease) and failure to accommodate.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the applicant provided illegible handwritten medical notes and failed to provide a required medical report.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the applicant to provide legible copies of the medical notes to the Tribunal, with the respondents to bear the cost of production.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming the respondents discriminatorily removed his church's religious denomination and his clergy status.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the subject-matter was substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the core allegations and remedies sought were identical to the prior complaint.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, creed, and age.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had multiple ongoing grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the outstanding grievances, which primarily concerned unfair job competitions.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because the collective agreement denied her short-term disability benefits after age 65.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing and pointed to recent health problems requiring surgery, after which she was denied benefits.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to secure medical evidence regarding the causes of her medical condition, her prognosis, and appropriate remedies.

She alleged that she had been unable to obtain this evidence and that the respondents may have interfered.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that parties are responsible for bringing the evidence necessary to maintain their positions and that a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the normal production process.

The respondents requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for delay or to defer it pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The Tribunal found that several of the applicant's older allegations dating back to 1998 and 2005 were out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and dismissed them.

For the remaining timely allegations of workplace harassment and sex discrimination, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the status of an ongoing grievance to determine whether the application should be deferred under section 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment by a co-worker.

The respondent co-worker requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance settlement that rescinded her suspension.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the grievance process focused on the respondent's employment rights and did not address the applicant's human rights allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed the employer to provide submissions on the applicant's request to add it as a respondent.

The applicant alleged that he experienced discrimination based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, and disability during an emergency room visit for an asthma attack.

He claimed the treating physician was dismissive and discriminatory because the applicant is Hindu and he believed the physician was a Goan Christian.

The Tribunal found that any tension between the parties was due to the applicant's intoxication and his denial of alcohol consumption, rather than any discriminatory animus.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a SCADA Protection and Control Supervisor, was terminated for cause shortly after requesting a four-week medical leave for depression and anxiety.

The employer had previously decided to terminate him without cause due to his resistance to sharing critical system passwords, but accelerated the termination to 'for cause' when he failed to attend work and was unreachable.

The Tribunal found that by proceeding with the termination for cause despite being made aware of a potential medical issue, the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The liability portion of the application was allowed in part.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not describe how the respondents' behaviour related to a pardoned criminal conviction or a provincial offence.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as it did not allege facts falling within the Code's definition of record of offences.

The applicant filed a Request for Order requiring the respondent to produce its list and copies of arguably relevant documents, specifically notes and records regarding strength and agility testing, to prepare an expert report.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the respondents failed to disclose numerous items in a separate academic misconduct proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain what the materials were, how their non-disclosure impacted his ability to proceed, or how legal remedies in the other proceeding affected this Application.

The Tribunal also issued directions for the filing of witness lists and detailed summaries of expected evidence to ensure an expeditious hearing.

The applicant, who lives in a condominium unit, sought an interim remedy to be relieved from the respondent's rule requiring him to transport his dog in a wagon or cart on common grounds, alleging it failed to accommodate his physical disability.

The Tribunal applied Rule 23 and found the application had merit, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and it was just and appropriate to grant the request.

The interim remedy was granted subject to conditions regarding leashing, entry/exit routes, and elevator usage times.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent company was subsequently declared bankrupt.

The Tribunal requested submissions from the applicant on whether the application could proceed given the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions or indicate how the application could proceed against the bankrupt respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the landlord's refusal to permit wheelchair accessibility modifications.

The respondent landlords requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because of an ongoing eviction proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss as premature because the LTB had not yet issued its decision.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to defer, finding minimal evidence that the human rights issues were raised before the LTB and noting that the LTB hearing had already concluded, eliminating the risk of concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that his termination of employment violated the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a comprehensive Settlement and Release agreement resolving a union grievance related to the same termination.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance settlement, which included substantial monetary compensation for human rights damages.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was invalid due to contracting out of the Code, employer breach, lack of independent legal advice, duress, or lack of consideration.

The applications were dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code and as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and colour almost ten years after accepting an early retirement package.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the ten-year delay and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions, but the applicant indicated he was taking his complaint elsewhere and refused to participate.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications regarding scheduling and his intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a five-year-old student with severe autism, sought transportation from his morning Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy centre to his afternoon special education program.

The school board denied the request because the therapy centre did not have a daycare licence, a requirement under its unwritten transportation practices.

The Tribunal found that the daycare licence requirement discriminated against the applicant, as his severe disability prevented him from attending a regular licensed daycare.

The Tribunal held that the board failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship and failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by not assessing his individual needs.

The board was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, out-of-pocket transportation expenses, and to amend its transportation policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final extension to September 15, 2010, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.