HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by numerous respondents, with a 95-page narrative detailing events dating back to 1963.

The Tribunal sought submissions on its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Finding no cogent explanation for the decades-long delay and determining that the allegations of general unfairness and conspiracy did not raise matters within its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application against a named individual, arguing she was not a principal of the corporate respondent during the applicant's employment, and sought costs for her wrongful addition.

The applicant clarified that the individual's inclusion as a party was a clerical error and she was intended only as a contact person.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual as a respondent but denied the request for costs, noting it lacks jurisdiction to award costs under the Human Rights Code or the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) against her employer, Brinks Canada Limited, and her benefits provider, Great West Life.

The applicant's union, CAW Canada Local 4266, requested and was granted intervener status.

Brinks requested that the application be dismissed against it on the basis that it is a federally regulated employer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability, and creed after being denied admission to a university program.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application, finding that the respondents had no role in the university's admission decision and that there was no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant filed human rights applications against three police services, alleging discrimination and reprisal based on false statements made in 2003 about his mental stability.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the core incidents occurred between 2003 and 2005, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the ongoing effects of the 2003 statements constituted a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's generalized fear of reprisal did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his suspension as financial secretary and removal of signing authority by the respondent unions.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).

The Tribunal found that the CIRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications, as the CIRB had already determined the applicant did not experience discrimination under the broader definition in the Canada Labour Code.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application, but the respondents failed to file a Response within the permitted time frame.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the application came to the attention of the corporate respondent and two of the personal respondents based on emails sent to the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the correct names and directed the respondents to file their Responses by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former landlord and four personal respondents, alleging discrimination based on age, sex, and reprisal.

The allegations primarily concerned excessive noise from the adjacent apartment occupied by two of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning whether the adjacent tenants were proper parties, as the application did not appear to link their alleged conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining why the adjacent tenants should remain as respondents.

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

The Notice of Application sent to the respondent was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current address for the respondent or reasons for believing the provided address was correct.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after filing a harassment grievance regarding a dispute over timesheets.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's harassment grievance did not allege harassment on the basis of any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

Because the applicant was not claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, he could not claim the protection of the reprisal section.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging disability and sex discrimination be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in a WSIB claim for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal found the WSIB proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene.

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

Prior to the application, the applicant's union filed grievances on the same matters, which were subsequently settled with the employer for a substantial financial payment.

Although the applicant did not sign the settlement, he retained the settlement funds, and his duty of fair representation complaint against the union was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as an abuse of process, finding that the matters had been appropriately resolved by the applicant's bargaining agent.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and reprisal by the Ottawa Police Services Board and a detective.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking relief for the same matters.

The Tribunal found that the civil action encompassed the applicant's complaints about his treatment and denial of medical attention while in custody.

Therefore, the disability discrimination allegations were barred.

However, the allegations of reprisal and sex discrimination were not raised in the civil action and were permitted to proceed to a preliminary hearing.

The applicant, a bartender at a casino, alleged that his employment was terminated based on his ethnic origin and race.

The corporate respondent maintained that the termination was for cause.

The applicant was subject to a 'last chance' agreement following a previous suspension for threatening a supervisor.

Surveillance footage captured the applicant breaching company policies, including taking company property and eating on the job.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination and concluded that the termination was for cause due to the policy breaches.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of record of disability.

One of the respondents requested the Tribunal dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further particulars linking the alleged harassment to a Code ground.

The applicant failed to establish a nexus between the alleged unfairness or harassment and an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found no basis for the reprisal claim, as the applicant had not claimed or enforced a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated because he requested a medical leave, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal found that the ESA officer had considered the termination and the human rights issues, concluding that the applicant was dismissed for cause and that the request for medical leave was not an improper factor.

Finding that the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request and dismissed the application.

The respondent, Hilton Toronto, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be added as a respondent and to remove its General Manager, Edwin Frizzell, as a respondent, assuming liability for any proven actions of its employees.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, amended the style of cause, and directed Hilton Toronto to file a Response to the Application within 35 days.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period, despite the Tribunal confirming they were aware of the application and providing them with the necessary forms.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by a final extended deadline would result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a request to proceed with her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The grievance process concluded with the withdrawal of the grievances.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the matter to be scheduled for mediation.