HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in the area of goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a notice indicating that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of age discrimination, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required 35-day period.

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

The applicant alleged that she was subjected to derogatory conduct and comments related to her gender by a co-worker, and that the employer failed to take appropriate action, forcing her to resign.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferred the respondents' evidence that the workplace conflicts stemmed from work performance issues rather than gender.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because she was required to remove her wedding rings to comply with the corporate respondent's hand hygiene policy.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondents, arguing they were acting in the normal course of their employment.

The Tribunal applied the established factors for removing personal respondents, noting that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable.

Finding no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents in the proceeding, the Tribunal granted the request and removed them.

The applicant alleged that the Ontario Ministry of Health discriminated against him on the basis of sex by refusing to fund a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for prostate cancer, while funding mammography screening for breast cancer in women.

The Tribunal accepted expert medical and epidemiological evidence demonstrating that, unlike mammography, PSA screening for asymptomatic men has not been shown to reduce mortality and carries significant risks of over-diagnosis and harmful treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the funding distinction is based on the medical efficacy of the respective screening tests and their consequences, rather than on the sex of the individuals being tested.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but later informed the Tribunal by telephone that he intended to withdraw it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a formal Request to Withdraw and warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent requested deferral, while the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral favors the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin after being issued a seatbelt ticket by a police officer.

The respondents, employees of the Toronto Police Services and the Ontario Civil Commission on Police Services, filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, including section 45.1 of the Code, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal deferred the requests and scheduled a half-day hearing to afford the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions on the preliminary issues.

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

The Tribunal noted that the narrative failed to identify any alleged discrimination related to a record of offences as defined under the Code, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer.

The Tribunal inquired whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding, as the applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Tribunal found that the LRA application would not deal with the facts and issues in the human rights application, and therefore declined to defer the matter.

The application will continue to be processed.

The applicant requested an order to defer her human rights application pending the mediation of a related civil action she commenced in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondents did not object to the deferral pending the mediation, though they indicated they would seek to dismiss the application if the applicant attempted to maintain overlapping litigation afterward.

Given the overlap in facts and issues, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice discriminated against him by failing to consider his disability when convicting him of impaired driving.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it has no jurisdiction to consider allegations of discrimination arising out of the exercise of adjudicative functions by a court, applying the principles of judicial immunity and the rule against collateral attack.

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel had recently broken his collarbone.

The applicant opposed the request, citing the lengthy history of the proceedings and the inconvenience and costs already incurred for the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that counsel's sudden injury constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that proceeding without prepared counsel would prejudice the respondents' right to make a full defence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, approximately two years after his employment ended.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was incurred in good faith due to his mental health following the murder of his common-law spouse and his initial pursuit of an Employment Standards claim.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and allowed the application to proceed.

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

The applicant subsequently died.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's estate to confirm whether it wished to continue with the application.

After receiving no response from the estate within the required timeframe, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant, who was hired at age 72, alleged that his employment was terminated due to age discrimination.

The respondent maintained that the termination was a layoff caused by an economic downturn and a significant reduction in the volume of metal frame work, which was the applicant's primary duty.

The Tribunal found that the respondent credibly established non-discriminatory reasons for the termination and rebutted the applicant's claim that he was replaced by a younger worker.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a university professor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

She claimed that her promotion process to full Professor was marred by discriminatory factors, that she experienced a negative salary differential compared to a male colleague, and that the university failed to properly investigate her complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced difficulties in her promotion process, there was no evidence that these difficulties or her salary differential were due to her sex.

The Tribunal also found that the university did not breach its duty to investigate under the Code, as the initial complaints did not specifically allege discrimination on Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal relating to complaints about workplace pornography.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending ongoing grievance proceedings and argued that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the grievances were being held in abeyance indefinitely.

On the issue of timeliness, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine if there was an ongoing series of incidents within the one-year limitation period and ordered the applicant to provide further written submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine its intentions regarding the application, but received no response.

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

The applicant, an employee with a mobility-related disability, sought an interim remedy to park in contractor spaces at the rear of the respondent's building pending the hearing of his human rights application.

The respondent had offered accommodation allowing the applicant to park in handicapped spaces or the closest available guest parking space.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the medical evidence did not support the applicant's assertions regarding the harm of not receiving his preferred parking spot, and the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the request.