HRTO 2010

The applicant, a 65-year-old firefighter, was required to retire from his operational position due to mandatory retirement provisions.

He was re-assigned to a non-operational position at a lower base rate of pay, though he received a top-up to his previous base salary for 30 months.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, arguing his top-up should be based on the higher Acting District Chief rate he frequently earned prior to retirement, rather than his base Captain rate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to maintain a worker's previous higher rate of pay when accommodated in a lower-paying position, and that the employer's voluntary top-up based on his permanent classification was not discriminatory.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer, his union, and several individuals, alleging harassment by a superintendent and failure by the employer and union to investigate.

The corporate and union respondents filed requests for orders to remove the individual respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, as the employer and union did not dispute vicarious liability and were capable of responding to any remedy.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability, along with a Request to Expedite due to financial hardship and health implications while on medical leave.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications are common in employment discrimination applications and do not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to expedite the process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was not returned to his original position following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an interim agreement reached during the grievance process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, the respondents requested deferral pending the outcome of the ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the interim agreement did not finally resolve the grievance.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation by the police and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services during his detention.

The Ministry requested an early dismissal of the application, arguing it lacked sufficient particulars and did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal reconsidered an earlier interim decision and found that the application contained sufficient allegations against the Ministry relating to the Code to proceed.

The Ministry's request to dismiss was denied, but its request for an extension of time to file an amended response was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent city in its public transit fare policies, claiming that persons using walkers or wheelchairs ride for free while he, an amputee, is charged fare.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing physical pain from walking because he cannot afford transit fare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical evidence to support the urgency and that financial inability to pay transit fare does not meet the high threshold for expediting an application.

The applicant requested to add the trustees of RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust as party respondents to an application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by security guards at a shopping centre.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to allege sufficient material facts that, if proven, could support a finding of liability against the trust or its individual trustees, as mere 50% ownership of the corporate respondent was insufficient.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application against the named personal respondents.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against the personal respondents.

Based on an agreement between the applicant and the corporate respondent, the Tribunal ordered the application finally disposed of and closed the file.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling during a noise investigation.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application duplicated a concurrent civil action.

The Tribunal denied the dismissal request, finding the application was framed as a breach of services while the civil action alleged constructive dismissal, and sought different remedies.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, an orthopaedic surgeon, discriminated against her on the basis of disability (HIV and Hepatitis C) by refusing to perform knee replacement surgery and failing to conduct a proper physical examination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the CPSO did not appropriately deal with the human rights issues.

On the merits, the Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, accepting the respondent's evidence that the applicant was not a candidate for surgery due to her knee condition, not her HIV or Hepatitis C status.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to withdraw from a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The complainant requested certain directions in response.

The Tribunal permitted the Commission to withdraw, noting its public interest mandate had been satisfied, and directed the Commission to provide a copy of its investigation file to the complainant.

Other requests by the complainant were denied as they did not arise out of transition issues or would require the Commission's continued active participation.

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

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which was granted as it represented the applicant in ongoing grievances arising from the same facts.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the grievance were the same and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

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

After discovering the originally named respondents did not operate the restaurant where the alleged discrimination occurred, the applicant requested to remove them and add the correct corporate entity.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal granted the request, removed the original respondents, and added the new corporate respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability after being terminated from her position as a cleaner during her training period.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to poor performance and dishonesty about an illness.

The Tribunal found that the respondent perceived the applicant to have endometriosis requiring surgery, and that this perception was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment.

Although no wage loss was established, the Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his workplace accommodation and access to training for a different position.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement explicitly acknowledged the applicant was being accommodated in his current position, thereby resolving the substance of the human rights applications.

The applications were dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by the WSIB.

Alternatively, the respondent sought deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB had not dealt with the substance of the human rights complaint regarding the applicant's layoff.

However, because the WSIB proceedings raised directly relevant issues, the Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Branch concluded its process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance.

The union ultimately refused to pursue the grievance.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the request was out of time.

The Tribunal found the request was filed within 60 days of the union confirming it would not pursue the grievance, and ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant, a black man from Sudan, was suspended for three days following a heated workplace altercation with a co-worker.

As a condition of returning to work, the employer required both employees to attend anger management counselling through the Employee Assistance Program.

The applicant refused, alleging the requirement was based on a racial stereotype that black men have a propensity for anger and violence, and his employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the employer's decision was influenced by the applicant's race or a perceived disability, but rather was a standard response under its strict workplace violence policy.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that her deferred human rights application be re-activated.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the resolution of a civil action.

The Tribunal treated the request as a request for reconsideration and denied it, noting the only reason offered was that the applicant had made arrangements to attend a previously cancelled hearing date.

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

The respondents previously requested early dismissal because the applicant had also filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the early dismissal request but sought submissions on whether to defer the application.

Given that the civil trial had already commenced and was at an advanced stage, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the civil proceeding.