HRTO 2010

The applicant, a South Asian woman, alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin when her employment as a Branch Manager was terminated during her probationary period.

She pointed to an incident where a customer refused to speak to an 'Indian' manager and alleged subsequent differential treatment by her supervisor.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation that the applicant was terminated for failing to meet performance expectations to be credible and more probable than an inference of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and with respect to membership in a vocational association.

During the hearing of the applications, the applicant requested to withdraw both applications.

The respondents consented to the withdrawals.

The Tribunal granted the requests and the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a settlement agreement following his termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed the release, which specifically contemplated the Human Rights Code, and there was no evidence of duress.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and an individual respondent.

The union sought intervenor status, which was granted as unopposed.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent, arguing the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the allegations against the individual involved section 5(2) of the Human Rights Code, which is explicitly excepted from the deemed corporate liability provision in section 46.3(1).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment during her attendance in a dental hygiene program.

The respondent College requested dismissal of the application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU).

Two personal respondents also requested to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for dismissal, finding the MTCU review did not address the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents at this stage.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the College to produce various documents, including redacted patient files and internal memos, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised.

The applicant, a sous chef, went on medical leave due to vertigo and anxiety.

When he attempted to return to work, the respondent restaurant repeatedly delayed his return and eventually told him to find another job.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by failing to facilitate his return to work.

The applicant was awarded $8,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $3,344 for lost wages.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had signed a release upon termination of his employment.

The respondents argued that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that at the time the applicant signed the release, he was homeless, living on the street, and affected by a mental disability.

He did not read or understand the release, believing he had to sign it to receive his severance pay.

Balancing the principle of finality with fairness, the Tribunal concluded that enforcing the release would not protect the integrity of the justice system.

The respondents' request was dismissed and the application was allowed to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the school board provides education services to students, not to parents, and therefore the matter does not fall under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to hear oral submissions on the jurisdictional issue before making a final determination.

The applicants brought three human rights applications against the respondents.

The respondents requested the dismissal of certain allegations based on delay, and the applicants requested the consolidation of all three applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to an October 2007 incident due to unexplained delay, but allowed the allegations relating to a March 2009 incident to proceed as the delay was incurred in good faith while pursuing a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the older transitional application with the newer section 34 applications due to the temporal gap and different stages of the proceedings, but ordered the two section 34 applications to be consolidated.

The respondents sought the early dismissal of a human rights application, arguing that the underlying issues had been resolved through a grievance settlement agreement.

The applicant contended the agreement was signed under duress and did not address her human rights concerns.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress.

While the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because human rights were not specifically discussed at mediation, it held that allowing the settled allegations to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed in part, with two unsettled allegations permitted to proceed.

The applicants, members of the Raelian Church of Canada, alleged that the respondent school board terminated their service contracts because of their creed.

The parties consented to mediation-arbitration and asked the Tribunal to determine the issue of discrimination based on written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicants by terminating their service contracts because of their creed, contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding remedies.

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

The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions and agreed to a monetary payment of $1,200 in exchange for a full release.

The applicant signed the release, but later attempted to resile from the settlement because the respondents did not provide the settlement funds by a unilaterally imposed deadline.

The Tribunal found that the parties had reached a binding settlement under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The timing of the payment was not a negotiated term of the agreement, and the applicant could not void the settlement based on the missed deadline.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that if they do not file a Response within 10 days, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

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

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1, arguing the substance was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability, along with a request for an interim monetary remedy for expenses while awaiting the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to file the required declarations under the Tribunal's Rules and did not establish that financial compensation was necessary to preserve the Tribunal's ability to order a just and effective remedy at the conclusion of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, a tenant in social housing, alleged discrimination on multiple grounds, claiming the respondents conspired with the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) by sharing her income information, which led to a reduction and delay in her income support payments.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's bald assertions of a conspiracy based on race and other grounds lacked a coherent or plausible account of events that could reasonably lead to success.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The organizational respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance.

The applicant subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because the grievance had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal also granted the Brockville Professional Firefighters' Association's request to intervene, as it was the applicant's exclusive bargaining agent.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant and the Commission to file detailed witness statements by a specified deadline, failing which the complaint might be dismissed as abandoned.

On the deadline day, the self-represented complainant wrote to the Tribunal explaining that his counsel had recently been suspended and had not informed him of the deadline.

In the circumstances, the Tribunal suspended the deadline and directed the scheduling of a conference call to discuss next steps.