HRTO 2010

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status after being denied a transfer following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondents argued the Application's scope should be restricted to events prior to the February 2006 complaint date.

The Tribunal held that the ongoing dispute over the transfer request formed the subject matter of the original complaint, and therefore the Application properly includes interactions up to and including the applicant's dismissal or resignation in August 2006.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act appeals.

The application may be re-activated within 60 days of the conclusion of the WSIA proceedings.

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 and granting a final extension to June 14, 2010, to file a Response and explain the delay.

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, citing an incorrect address, though she confirmed receipt of the Tribunal's package via email.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by June 11, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and race or ethnic origin.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because it is a federally regulated business involved in processing banking transactions.

The applicant conceded the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction but requested the matter be referred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and noted it has no authority to refer applications to other adjudicative bodies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services, goods, and facilities.

The applicant claimed that an excessively noisy air ventilation system belonging to the corporate respondent caused health problems and that the respondent failed to accommodate these disabilities by relocating the vents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing the applicant's written submissions, dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the impact of the noisy physical plant did not constitute a service, facility, or good within the meaning of the Human Rights Code, and therefore the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

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

After a scheduled hearing date was cancelled due to the respondents' scheduling conflict, the applicant failed to provide available dates for rescheduling or respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated because she was pregnant.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to deal with the respondents' request for early dismissal.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

Noting the applicant's prior correspondence requesting withdrawal and her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and harassment in employment and subsequently requested to expedite the proceedings.

She argued that ongoing incidents caused her emotional distress and that delay would cause irreparable harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the emotional impact of ongoing circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency compared to other cases.

Furthermore, the ten-month delay between the most significant alleged event and the filing of the application weighed against granting priority.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, having previously amended a parallel civil claim to remove the request for human rights damages.

The Tribunal considered whether to expedite the proceedings and whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the civil action for wrongful dismissal and defamation.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid adjudicative duplication, as the civil proceeding relied on identical facts.

The complainant sought the production of minutes of settlement of grievances relating to three substantiated Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy complaints.

The respondent Ministry argued the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The Tribunal held that settlement privilege must be established on a case-by-case basis using the Wigmore criteria, rather than as a prima facie class privilege.

The Tribunal found the Ministry failed to establish that the harm caused by disclosure outweighed the benefit to the correct disposal of the litigation.

Even if a prima facie privilege applied, the Tribunal found that an exception was warranted because disclosure was necessary for the attainment of an overriding interest of justice.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the settlement agreements.

The applicant requested permission to hire a court reporter at his own expense to record the upcoming hearing, without the usual requirement to order and provide a transcript to the parties and the Tribunal due to cost.

The respondents opposed the request unless the applicant committed to ordering a transcript.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, waiving the requirement to pay for a transcript, but imposed strict conditions on the use of the recording to prevent the applicant from using it for collateral purposes such as media dissemination or writing a book.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process that resulted in Minutes of Settlement in 2006 and 2008.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process and subsequent settlements constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The applications were dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently filed for protection under the CCAA and was placed in receivership, resulting in a Superior Court order staying all proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that his application proceed because the respondent was settling with secured creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was bound by the Superior Court's receivership order staying proceedings, and directed the applicant to seek leave from the Court if he wished to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (sexual solicitation) and termination of employment after rejecting her supervisor's advances.

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary telephone conference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, as section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application nearly three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the decision and scheduled a teleconference hearing to receive oral submissions from the parties on the issue of delay and prejudice.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family and marital status after the respondent police service declined to investigate his complaint of theft and fraud arising from the court-ordered sale of his matrimonial home.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondent requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence linking the police's decision not to investigate to a prohibited ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination for the respondent's failure to provide modified work during her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the same issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance that had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the subject-matter of the application was substantially similar to the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The union and respondents supported deferral, while the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues, and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for June 7, 2010, stating that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre needed more time to prepare to represent him.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period following the notice of hearing, and that a change of counsel or decision to retain counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying a late adjournment.