HRTO 2010

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after suffering a massive heart attack.

Following his return to work, he experienced a temporary reduction in hours, was required to take full days off for medical appointments, and was assigned to a different truck.

His employment was ultimately terminated.

The Tribunal found that the reduction in hours was due to seasonal business fluctuations, the medical appointment policy was a reasonable operational requirement, and the truck assignment was unrelated to his health.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on the applicant's repeated complaints and inappropriate comments to a customer, not his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal and association, specifically citing his prior union involvement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because union association is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no allegations that the applicant attempted to enforce rights under the Code or was discriminated against based on a protected ground.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the last known postal and e-mail addresses of the individual respondent from the organization respondent.

The organization respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the organization respondent to deliver and file the requested addresses within five days.

The applicant, a Black single mother, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and family status by her son's school principal and the school board.

The allegations stemmed from a series of conflicts regarding her son's discipline, culminating in the principal reporting potential physical abuse to the Children's Aid Society after the son stated his mother hit him with a belt.

The CAS subsequently apprehended the children, and the school issued a trespass notice to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the principal acted appropriately and in accordance with his training and legal obligations in reporting the matter to the CAS, and that none of the respondents' actions were tainted by discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of association and reprisal, claiming he was falsely accused of serious misconduct at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a ground of discrimination under the Code or reprisal as defined in the Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no facts alleged within the scope of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and disability.

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under emotional and physical duress following a recent heart attack and family death.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant understood the release and was not under duress.

The Tribunal concluded that the release was valid and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The applicant's former union requested to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to intervene, finding its involvement would not be helpful and could unnecessarily expand the scope of the hearing.

The respondents also requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing to determine the early dismissal request.

The respondents made a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request.

Noting Tribunal case law advising against the unnecessary naming of individual respondents, the Tribunal ordered the individual respondents removed and amended the style of cause accordingly.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant's grievance had been settled.

The applicant disputed agreeing to the settlement and filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights proceedings pending the outcome of the Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal stood the matter down for an hour to allow for potential delays, but the applicant still did not appear and provided no communication to explain her absence.

As it is the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of her allegations, the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted an extension to June 18, 2010, to file a Response and explain the delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay.

After the applicant failed to respond within the 30-day deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

After the Tribunal stated it would take no further steps for up to one year unless contacted, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her intentions, but she did not respond.

Consequently, the applicant was deemed to have withdrawn her Application, and it was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability by his employer, TCHC, and his union.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding delay, as many of the allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations against TCHC and the individual employer respondent, as well as the pre-December 2007 allegations against the union.

The application was permitted to continue against the union regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found the respondent police officer discriminated against the applicant, a Black woman, during a traffic stop.

The respondents argued that the adjudicator misapprehended the evidence regarding the applicant's fear, confusion, and distraction, and improperly applied concepts of racism without expert evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the original credibility assessments and factual findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and the surrounding context, and that the Tribunal is entitled to apply its specialized expertise regarding the manifestations of racism without requiring expert testimony in every case.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's age restrictions for Junior A and B hockey discriminated against him on the basis of age, contrary to the Human Rights Code and the Charter.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for mootness, arguing the applicant was never registered with the association.

The applicant also sought to add his younger brother as a co-applicant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the motions, ordering the applicant and proposed co-applicant to file further affidavit evidence demonstrating their actual hockey experience and capacity to try out for Junior hockey.

In an ongoing human rights hearing, the applicant sought to introduce further evidence regarding alleged workplace harassment, discrimination, and reprisals.

The respondents objected, arguing the proposed evidence fell outside the scope of the original complaint.

The Tribunal reviewed the proposed evidence in groups, allowing evidence that clarified or provided context to allegations already raised in the complaint, such as comments about the applicant's appearance and reasons for not reporting concerns to management.

However, the Tribunal disallowed new allegations of discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisals that were not included in the original complaint or pertained to grounds not previously raised.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was given a final deadline to file a Response, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming the individual respondent made sexual advances and touched her inappropriately while providing massage services in her home.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The Tribunal granted a request to amend the corporate respondent's Response to correct the College's address.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the College to provide further written submissions regarding the status of the College complaint and whether the Tribunal should dismiss or defer the application.