HRTO 2010

The applicant alleged that her employment as a Customer Service Representative was terminated because she disclosed she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents claimed she was terminated due to performance issues, specifically slowness and speaking too softly.

The Tribunal found that while there were legitimate performance issues, the discovery of the applicant's pregnancy was a factor that contributed significantly to the decision to terminate her employment.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $3,600 for wage loss and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tribunal Vice-chair, alleging discrimination arising from a previous adjudicative decision.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, raising issues of judicial immunity and whether adjudicative decisions constitute 'services' under the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant, who was on a disability-related leave, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age when he missed the deadline to apply for a position vacated by his supervisor.

Following the applicant's evidence at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to his voicemail where the job was announced, was aware the application process was ongoing, and failed to make inquiries or apply before the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent is a federal agency, placing the matter outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

She argued that she did not receive notice of the proceeding due to mail tampering.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting it was filed more than eight months after the decision and the applicant failed to explain why she waited until May 2010 to contact the Tribunal despite receiving the envelope containing the abandonment decision in September 2009.

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 participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted them 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, Bell Technical Solutions Inc., alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing its labour relations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant also requested to add Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada as a respondent regarding short-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal deferred the jurisdictional issue, ordering an oral hearing with a full factual record.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Sun Life due to a 15-month delay that was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant's representative requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because he was unable to contact the applicant by telephone or mail.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, finding that the inability to contact a client does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal warned that failure to attend the hearing could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Both parties filed multiple Requests for Orders during Proceedings (RFOPs).

The applicant sought to add corporate and personal respondents, amend her application to include issues related to a separate defamation lawsuit, and compel third parties to produce documents and statements.

The respondents sought to remove a personal respondent and dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed all requests, finding the applicant's document requests premature and improperly directed, the proposed new respondents unnecessary, and the defamation issues irrelevant to the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent or dismiss the application.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request to Intervene in the proceeding.

As the request was unopposed by the applicant and consented to by the respondents, the Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the respondents' food bank services and a requirement to sign a waiver.

The applicant brought several preliminary requests, including requests to expedite the proceedings, for an interim remedy to halt the waiver requirement, for a Tribunal ordered inquiry, and for early document production.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no urgent circumstances to expedite, a lack of evidentiary foundation for an interim remedy, and that the requests for an inquiry and document production were premature.

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.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability and age, more than two and a half years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to waiting for proof, relying on union advice, and dealing with other issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that her human rights hearing be moved from London to Toronto, or alternatively that she be permitted to participate by teleconference or videoconference, or that the Tribunal cover her travel costs.

The Tribunal denied the requests, noting that it does not cover travel costs or move hearings due to financial constraints.

The Tribunal also found that in-person attendance was necessary for a fair and expeditious hearing given the number of parties and potential witnesses.

The respondents requested a further extension of time to file their Response to a human rights application, citing a delay in receiving a Provincial Court order.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the respondents 21 days from the receipt of the order to file their Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a prior 'no response decision'.

Applying the Tribunal's Rules and its decision in Kearns, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to advise whether she wished to submit additional documents or make oral submissions before the Tribunal issues a final remedial order.

The applicant contracted with the respondent for roofing work and paid in advance, but the work was never completed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's failure to honour the contract was discriminatory based on the applicant's Romanian ancestry and status as a new Canadian.

The Tribunal found no direct evidence of discrimination and concluded that the mere possibility of discriminatory motivation was insufficient to establish a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination by her church and related individuals, claiming she was shunned and forced to resign after reporting her husband's abuse and adultery.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to apparent delay and the naming of numerous respondents without specific allegations.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as the applicant alleged a series of incidents culminating in a denial of an internal appeal in 2009.

However, the Tribunal removed several individual respondents against whom no specific acts of discrimination were alleged.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for July 19, 2010, citing witness unavailability due to family obligations, summer vacations, and work commitments.

The applicant did not consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the hearing date was set after consultation with the parties months prior, and the reasons provided did not constitute extraordinary circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in the receipt of services, claiming he received differential treatment as a man applying for a legal aid certificate for a family law dispute.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence did not show his gender was a factor in the respondent's decisions regarding his certificate or requests for financial information.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.