HRTO 2010

The applicant alleged that she was discriminated against in her employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was offered lower pay than male colleagues and was discriminatorily terminated after refusing to work Saturdays.

The Tribunal found that historical pay variations were based on experience and funding, not gender.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's termination was a non-discriminatory response to her absolute refusal to comply with a new requirement for all program staff to work Saturdays.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and marital status, relating to events that occurred between 2000 and 2003.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed almost six years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant's response focused on the personal impact of the alleged discrimination rather than explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent school board requested the dismissal of a transitional human rights application on the basis that there was no continued complaint against it at the Commission as of June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal found the record unclear as to whether the school board remained a party to the underlying complaint after it was amended.

The Tribunal directed the Ontario Human Rights Commission to review its records and advise whether a continued complaint against the school board existed as of the transitional date.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the applicant had failed to return communications or disclose documents and witnesses, leading the respondent to believe she would not attend.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's belief did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal noted that failure to comply with disclosure rules would be addressed at the hearing, and if the applicant failed to attend, the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment, culminating in his termination.

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release upon termination, or alternatively, a deferral pending a police investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding the termination document contained no release language.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request, noting the police investigation addressed a different specific issue and appeared to be concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, claiming he was terminated after refusing to return to modified work duties due to injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal on several grounds, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the timeliness issue within ten days, noting that the other preliminary issues would be addressed subsequently.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, two days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response, relying only on a brief mention of 'illness and computer difficulties' in her initial application.

The Tribunal found this explanation insufficient to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was barred by an ongoing civil claim for malicious prosecution.

The applicant, who self-identifies as a Christian Naturist, alleged discrimination and reprisal in the provision of services based on creed.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the civil claim did not allege an infringement of the applicant's Code rights nor seek an order under section 46.1.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and other grounds, following his termination.

During a case management teleconference, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for disclosure of employee termination records and his potential request to amend the application to add age as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide specific data regarding terminated employees and set out steps for the applicant to formally request an amendment and issue a summons.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the pensioner re-employment provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The provisions limited the number of days a retired teacher could work as an occasional teacher without their pension benefits being suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that any differential treatment was based on the applicant's employment status as a retired teacher in receipt of a pension, rather than his age, and employment status is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in the calculation of his non-economic loss benefit by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the application was barred by section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Noting the applicant's failure to respond to the request, the Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the applicant ten days to provide written or oral submissions before determining the dismissal issue.

In an application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding wheelchair access to two restaurants, the Tribunal addressed preliminary requests to add and remove parties.

The Tribunal added the franchise owner, Grandi Company Ltd., as a respondent.

It declined to remove the franchisor, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., finding that franchisor liability should be determined at a hearing.

However, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent, Grant Ford, as he acted merely as an agent for the corporate respondent and there was no compelling reason to maintain him as a party.

The applicant was also permitted to amend his proposed financial remedy.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide current contact information for the corporate respondent after correspondence was returned by Canada Post.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction and a subsequent Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal granted the respondents 10 days to file a Response and an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when his employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The employer requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an unsigned grievance settlement between the employer and the union appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant did not sign or agree to the settlement, it could not bar his human rights complaint.

However, the Tribunal granted the employer's alternative request to defer the application under section 45 of the Code, as the same issues regarding the suitability of modified work and the reasons for termination were currently before the WSIB on appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination by the corporate respondent's president and a manager identified only as 'Ricardo'.

After the respondents disclosed the manager's surname in their response, the applicant requested an order to add Ricardo Darmanie as an individual respondent.

As no party objected and the addition was necessary for a fair resolution, the Tribunal granted the request and added Mr. Darmanie as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability, specifically challenging the respondent's policy on disability related to mental stress.

The Tribunal had issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, suggesting the application was outside its jurisdiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as it raised a ground and area under the Code.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response and requested submissions from both parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of any outstanding workplace safety and insurance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal five months after the one-year statutory deadline.

He argued the delay was unintentional and caused by waiting for the outcome of a union grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith because the applicant could have filed a timely application while continuing to pursue his grievance, and he knew well before the deadline that the union might not advance his grievance further.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against the union.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for particulars and document production as premature, noting that the application was at an early stage, the requested documents related to allegations that might be found untimely at an upcoming preliminary hearing, and the parties had not yet complied with standard disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal in her employment, claiming she was bullied, harassed, and unfairly dismissed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application did not identify a Code-related ground for the alleged mistreatment.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it did not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.