HRTO 2010

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

The facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

Both parties agreed that deferral was appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex when her employment as a Rehabilitation Assistant was terminated shortly after she informed her employer of her pregnancy.

The respondents maintained she was terminated due to ongoing performance issues, specifically her inability to follow client treatment plans and foster client independence despite repeated coaching.

The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence and testimony supported the respondents' position that the termination was based on performance concerns that predated the pregnancy announcement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a member of the ACTRA Toronto Extras Caucus, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal, following her removal from the Caucus.

The Tribunal found that the incidents complained of were the result of interpersonal conflicts and the applicant's misinterpretation of comments and non-verbal cues, rather than discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal from the Caucus was due to her rigid adherence to formality and personality conflicts, not a reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with lupus and a hand tremor, was dismissed from a dental hygiene program due to academic and clinical failures.

She alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability and later discriminated against her by refusing readmission.

The Tribunal found that while the substantive duty to accommodate was not breached, the respondent violated the procedural duty by failing to initiate an individualized assessment of her accommodation needs after being informed of her disability.

The claim regarding readmission was dismissed as the applicant failed to complete the application process.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in compensation and develop an accommodation policy.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications against the respondents relating to the same events.

The respondents requested that one application be dismissed on the basis that a complaint had been filed with the Commission, and alternatively requested deferral pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss as no Commission complaint had been filed.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the three applications should be consolidated and whether they should be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance dealing with substantially the same facts and human rights issues was ongoing.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the grievance.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a former receptionist at a car dealership, alleged she was sexually harassed and solicited by a sales manager.

The respondent admitted the harassment occurred but argued it responded appropriately by reprimanding the manager and offering the applicant alternative employment at a different dealership.

The Tribunal found the respondent liable for the manager's conduct but concluded its response to the complaint was reasonable.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Her claim for lost wages was dismissed because she failed to mitigate her damages by refusing the alternative employment offered by the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed after the respondents failed to return his ring upon his release from custody in 2005.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on creed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the nearly 48-month delay in filing the application was not incurred in good faith, as incarceration and prior efforts to contact the respondents did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company providing services to airlines operating international and interprovincial flights.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall within federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding police attendance at her home during a tenant dispute.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the events were currently the subject of an appeal by the applicant to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that the Commission must apply and interpret the Code in its review, and directed the applicant to request to proceed within 60 days after the Commission proceedings conclude.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss seeking submissions on jurisdiction, delay, and other issues, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated his previous arguments and failed to meet any of the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada (SEIU) requested intervenor status in a human rights application, arguing that any remedy ordered could impact other employees in the bargaining unit or the corporate respondent's accommodation policies.

None of the parties opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the SEIU intervenor status, permitting it to participate as an observer on the issue of liability and to take an active role, including cross-examining witnesses and making submissions, on the issue of remedy.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, claiming her employment was terminated when she attempted to return from maternity leave after the dental practice was sold to the respondent.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the Application, arguing it was not a proper party as the applicant was not listed as an employee in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying whether she alleged the respondent itself violated her rights or was liable as a successor employer.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent failed to provide sick pay during a lawful strike.

The respondent argued that the collective agreement was not in effect during the strike and no employees were entitled to wages or sick pay, meaning there was no differential treatment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file written submissions explaining how the Application discloses a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision regarding the failure of the complainants' counsel to respond to a previous Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal removed the counsel from the record.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission was given 60 days to contact the complainants and provide their current contact information to the Tribunal, failing which the complaints would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that found the respondent was not prohibited from disclosing certain medical records under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, reconsideration is only available for final decisions that dispose of central issues.

The previous decision was interim, and the applicant merely reiterated previous submissions.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance process.

The applicant provided evidence that she had withdrawn the grievance.

The respondents opposed the reactivation, arguing the grievance process was the appropriate forum.

The Tribunal found that since the grievance was withdrawn, there was no longer any reason to defer the application.

The request was granted, and the respondents were directed to file a response.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the provided address.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence and email requesting further contact information, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued that a meeting with the hospital CEO in October 2009 constituted the last incident in a series, bringing his application within the time limit.

The Tribunal found that the alleged discriminatory incident occurred in November 2007, and the subsequent meeting with the CEO was not part of a series of discriminatory incidents.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.