HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its personnel regarding their handling and dismissal of his previous human rights complaints.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body, as the content, reasons, and result of a statutory decision-maker's decision do not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The originally named corporate respondents requested that the application be dismissed against them, claiming they never employed the applicant.

The applicant requested to add a new corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to dismiss, finding it premature as successor corporations can sometimes be liable.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the new respondents, noting that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation and there was no response opposing the request.

The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent filed an incomplete response using an incorrect form.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file a proper Form 2 Response, but no response was received.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a proper Response by May 14, 2010, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed applications alleging that the denial of Ontario Works benefits violated the Human Rights Code.

He requested an interim remedy ordering the payment of benefits pending the determination of the issue.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding it was not necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy as the applicant had other sources of income and the matter was before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal also issued a notice of intent to defer the applications pending the conclusion of the Social Benefits Tribunal proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding a failure to facilitate his return to work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of related grievance proceedings.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, noting the application could affect the collective agreement.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and provided the union with ten days to make submissions on the respondent's deferral request.

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

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the Teamsters Union, Local 230 and Dan Millar.

As there were no objections from the remaining respondents, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause to remove the union and Dan Millar as respondents.

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 after receiving the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final opportunity to file a Response by May 13, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis for failing to establish a prima facie case, or alternatively, deferred pending the completion of WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the power to dismiss the application without hearing oral submissions under s. 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

However, as the applicant consented and there was overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him, but initially failed to identify a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In response to an earlier interim decision, the applicant filed submissions alleging discrimination on the basis of gender and family status.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the Code and were within its jurisdiction to decide.

The respondent was ordered to file a complete Response, and the matter was referred to mediation.

The applicant filed an Application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The respondents sought to defer the Application because of an ongoing grievance proceeding raising substantially the same issues.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the applicant's union, the Ontario Nurses Association, an opportunity to make submissions on the deferral issue within ten days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent condominium corporation's enforcement of a 'families only' occupancy restriction compelled him to discriminate against his tenants.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal had already ruled that the occupancy provision did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 34(11)(b) of the Code because the courts had finally determined the issue.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following the applicant's death, the Tribunal contacted his wife and the estate trustee to determine if they intended to proceed with the application.

After receiving no response to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed.

The respondents sought to defer the application due to an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant's union requested leave to intervene, which the respondents supported.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the union to provide written submissions on the deferral issue within ten days.

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own motion a previous decision dismissing the application for failure to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal acknowledged a processing error, as the applicant had in fact submitted timely responses.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred by a related Small Claims Court action, as the civil claim did not specifically refer to the respondent's decision to refuse further service.

The application was permitted to proceed on the narrow issue of whether the refusal of services breached the Human Rights Code on the ground of disability.

The applicant, a former shift supervisor, alleged age discrimination after his employment was terminated following the closure of the respondent's Burlington facility.

He claimed his age was a factor in his termination and in the respondent's failure to hire him for other positions at its Hamilton facility.

The Tribunal found that all salaried employees at the Burlington facility were terminated regardless of age.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that age was a factor in the respondent's hiring decisions at the Hamilton facility, or that he was qualified for the positions filled by others.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant, who lived in subsidized housing, had his rent subsidy revoked and was subsequently evicted after failing to provide updated income information requested by the respondent.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, concluding that the respondent's actions were solely due to the applicant's failure to comply with repeated requests for income information and his subsequent failure to pay market rent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants in six separate human rights applications alleging employment discrimination based on disability requested that their applications be consolidated for mediation and adjudication.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted significant overlap in the allegations but also specific individual allegations.

To minimize inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the applications to be processed together and heard by one adjudicator, who will determine whether they should be consolidated or heard serially.

The Tribunal declined to force joint mediation but ordered all applications to be scheduled for mediation on the same date with one mediator.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, arguing that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code and related statutes concerning a voluntary early retirement program.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to repair deficiencies in his original case and failed to demonstrate that the previous decision conflicted with existing jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against him in the design and implementation of his Labour Market Re-entry Program and related benefits.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the contents and reasons of WSIB decisions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the term 'services' in section 1 of the Human Rights Code does not include the content and reasons of a WSIB claims adjudicator decision determining entitlement to benefits.

The application was dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that such allegations must be raised within the WSIB appeals system.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding his termination, the respondent's failure to rehire him, and the adequacy of his reference letter.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed two full and final releases in exchange for severance and an additional lump sum payment.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding.

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