HRTO 2010

The applicants, female hourly employees, filed human rights applications alleging gender discrimination after their washroom and change facility was reassigned to salaried male employees.

The applicants had also filed union grievances regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applications.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicants opposed it.

The Tribunal deferred the applications pending the completion of the concurrent grievance proceedings, noting its normal approach to defer when parties are engaged in concurrent legal proceedings raising the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his employer, a flour mill.

The respondent submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because flour mills are federally regulated works under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent falls under federal jurisdiction and the Ontario Human Rights Code does not apply.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was required to provide written submissions within 30 days but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant abandoned her Application and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination and reprisal requested an order directing that she and an employee of the respondent take lie detector tests.

The Tribunal denied the request, citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Béland, which held that polygraph evidence is inadmissible.

The Tribunal noted that the adjudicator must reach their own conclusions regarding witness credibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability and sex, including allegations of sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The corporate respondent and three personal respondents requested an order removing the personal respondents from the proceeding.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed two personal respondents against whom there were no specific allegations of personal conduct.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the third personal respondent, finding that her alleged individual conduct was a central issue in the applicant's claim.

The applicant sought leave to amend the human rights Application.

The respondent consented to the request, provided it was given an opportunity to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondent to file its amended Response by a specified date.

The applicant sought leave to amend the Application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend and provided a deadline for the respondent to file an amended Response.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB appeal, arguing the WSIB would determine whether the applicant was an employee.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB process would not address the human rights issues of discrimination, accommodation, and reprisal, nor determine employment status under the Code.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend her application to avoid duplication of remedial compensation.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently went into receivership, and the Superior Court of Justice issued an order staying all proceedings against the respondent.

The Tribunal determined that the application could not proceed and directed the applicant to advise whether she intends to seek leave from the court or consent from the receiver to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status, claiming she was terminated when seeking to return from pregnancy leave.

The applicant had also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 based on identical facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

Finding that the legal issues and factual circumstances were identical and raised the possibility of overlapping remedies, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

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

The applicant failed to appear at a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence or provide a current mailing address.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent filed a motion for an order compelling the applicant to produce the original copy of her 2003-2004 school agenda for inspection.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing she had already provided photocopies of certain pages and was willing to provide the original to the Tribunal, but not to the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the entire agenda was arguably relevant and ordered the applicant to provide the original agenda to the respondent's representative for a two-day inspection period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability related to pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim filed by the applicant regarding the same factual circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the facts, allegations, and legal issues overlapped significantly and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

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

The respondents requested that evidence given by a union representative before the Ontario Labour Relations Board be accepted as uncontested facts in the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB had only assumed facts for the purpose of a motion to dismiss and had not made actual findings of fact regarding the disputed evidence.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue within the required 30-day period.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions within 30 days but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days, despite the Tribunal delivering the Application to both the original and an alternative address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted them a final 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a new application which appeared to be intended as an amendment to a previous application against the same respondent.

As the previous application had already been withdrawn, the Tribunal closed this new application as withdrawn.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent municipality regarding the provision of low floor buses.

The applicant argued he was surprised by the respondent's reliance on section 11 of the Human Rights Code, alleged bias by the Tribunal in limiting evidence, and pointed out a factual error regarding bus service frequency.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had the opportunity to address undue hardship during the hearing, the limitation of evidence was a proper exercise of the Tribunal's powers, and while there was a minor factual error regarding service frequency, it did not change the conclusion that the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.