HRTO 2010

The applicant, a restaurant co-manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (liver disease).

The respondents claimed she was terminated for cause due to performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the termination closely coincided with the onset of her medical condition and her need for time off work.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $5,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus compensation for lost disability benefits for six months.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a termination compensation package.

The applicant argued he was not in the right frame of mind when he signed the release due to his medications.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Code, the applicant had obtained legal advice before signing, and he provided no medical evidence to substantiate his claim of incapacity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondents, dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, or dismiss parts of it as being beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions addressing the issues of delay, prima facie case, and removal of personal respondents, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a former student with multiple disabilities, brought an application alleging the respondent school board failed to appropriately accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of various documents, including policies, Special Incidence Portion applications, and information regarding the assignment of a specific Special Education Assistant.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce certain documents and information by a specified date, while declining to order production of other requested materials at this stage.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, amounted to an abuse of process, and improperly named one of the corporate respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to hear oral submissions on these preliminary issues, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The additional corporate respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to file a response within seven days, noting that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The personal respondent requested early dismissal of the application, citing his acquittal at trial on criminal charges arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal directed the other parties to provide submissions on the request for early dismissal within 15 days.

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

A conference call hearing was scheduled to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal received submissions from the respondents and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination after his commercial driver's licence was downgraded to a GZ licence due to a visual impairment following a stroke.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that section 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that the visual requirements for a Class A or C licence apply despite the Human Rights Code.

Pursuant to section 47(2) of the Code, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the visual requirement contravened the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, contracts, and goods, services and facilities against her former employer and several insurance and benefits administrators.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the applicant's employment was located in Nova Scotia and the denial of long term disability benefits is a contractual issue for the courts.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The complainant requested to withdraw her human rights complaint against the respondents.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing, arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had been formally requested to seek intervenor status due to the systemic nature of the complaint.

The respondents opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Commission had not filed a Request to Intervene nor indicated any intention to do so, and therefore there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin, claiming he was constructively dismissed due to harassment by the property manager.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the OLRB had already held a hearing on the same factual allegations of harassment and mistreatment, concluding they were not supported by evidence.

As the underlying factual issues were substantially the same and appropriately dealt with by the OLRB, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The respondents failed to file a proper Form 2 Response despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Form 2 Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The complainant, a physiotherapist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status after his services at the Hellenic Home were terminated.

The complainant was married to the Administrator and Director of Care at the facility where he worked.

The Tribunal found that while the initial decision to remove him from the facility was based on his marital status, it was a reasonable and bona fide qualification to prevent a conflict of interest, as his wife had supervisory responsibility over his work.

A subsequent decision to remove him from all facilities was found to be based on his inappropriate conduct rather than his marital status.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondents filed a Request to Dismiss the applicant's human rights application, arguing it raised the same issues as a previously dismissed application regarding the apprehension of the applicant's children.

The Tribunal noted that the doctrine of abuse of process may apply to prevent relitigation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether he wished the hearing into the preliminary issue of abuse of process to proceed by teleconference or in writing.

The ARCH Disability Law Centre filed a Request to Intervene in the proceeding.

On consent of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the request, limiting the intervention as set out in the Request.

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

Because the applicant had also filed union grievances regarding the same issues, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent and the union consented to the deferral but provided no substantive information about the status of the grievances or the accommodation process.

The Tribunal found the information insufficient to determine whether deferral was appropriate and directed the parties to provide further submissions.

The respondents brought a Request for Order seeking dismissal of portions of the human rights application for delay, dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, removal of the personal respondent, and production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents prior to April 16, 2007, finding they did not form a series of incidents and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondent, finding his actions were central to the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to commence an application before a Youth Court judge to obtain authorization to disclose transcripts from his related criminal proceeding, and deferred the s. 45.1 dismissal request until those transcripts are available.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by an employee of a service station, identifying two personal respondents by their first names only.

The applicant requested an order directing the corporate respondent to provide contact information for the personal respondents.

The corporate respondent declined to provide the information without a Tribunal order, citing a retail agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the name and current address of the service station retailer to enable notification of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application on a preliminary issue, but reconsidered its decision on its own motion after realizing the time for the applicant to file a Reply had not elapsed.

The applicant subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, arguing the reconsideration process was unfair.

The Tribunal denied the recusal request, noting its statutory power to reconsider decisions under s. 45.7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also scheduled a telephone hearing to address the preliminary issue, as s. 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.