HRTO 2010

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in the provision of a service after a TTC bus driver challenged his transfer and required him to pay another fare.

The Tribunal found that the transfer was out of time and that there was no evidence the applicant was singled out for greater scrutiny because of his race, colour, or ethnic origin.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a leasing agent, was diagnosed with breast cancer and required an indefinite leave of absence for surgery and treatment.

Upon informing her employer, a dispute arose regarding whether she resigned or was requesting medical leave.

The respondent employer maintained she had resigned and subsequently barred her from the premises.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not resign, but was terminated.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by terminating her employment instead of accommodating her disability-related absence short of undue hardship.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy to be determined at a later date.

The personal respondent, Andrea Seepersaud, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed from the human rights application.

She argued that as she was acting in the course of her employment as Executive Director, she could not be named as a respondent under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that individual employees can be held personally liable under section 9 of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct was a central issue in the proceeding and that there was no institutional employer available to respond to the allegations, as the corporate respondent had closed.

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

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn as against the personal respondents and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The parties were directed to follow the established timetable for disclosure.

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

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of a civil proceeding involving the same parties.

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

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process that culminated in the union withdrawing the grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the withdrawal of the grievance without a binding settlement did not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as there was no indication the applicant agreed her concerns were resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by the corporate respondent and 11 employees.

The applicant subsequently submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove six of the personal respondents, noting two were named in error and four were unnecessary as there were no allegations of harassment for which the corporate respondent would not be liable.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the six personal respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, citing a hypersensitivity to noise.

He requested to expedite the application because a suitable unit had become available in his building.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the unit was already rented for the upcoming month.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that because the unit was already rented, expediting the process would not make the requested remedy available.

The Tribunal directed that mediation be scheduled at the earliest possible date.

The applicant, a former on-site superintendent, alleged she was terminated and harassed during her employment on the basis of sex and religion by her supervisor and the property management board.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision not to renew the applicant's employment contract was based on documented performance concerns and tenant complaints, not discriminatory factors.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's comments regarding the applicant's strength and occasional discussions about religion did not amount to a course of vexatious conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, having only stated on the application form that he believed the limitation period was two years.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without making inquiries does not constitute a reasonable explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed two procedural requests.

The applicant requested to amend the application to add age as a ground of discrimination, which the Tribunal granted, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the hearing was over two months away.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, which the Tribunal also granted, noting the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the personal respondent's actions and there were no allegations of harassment.

The respondents raised preliminary objections to a transitional human rights application, arguing it was not completed before the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline and should alternatively be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its technical rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application, despite failing to deliver the proper form to the respondents at that time.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the section 45.1 and abuse of process arguments, and ordered the applicant to file written submissions or face dismissal of the application.

The applicant filed various procedural requests ahead of a preliminary hearing regarding the respondents' request to dismiss the application due to a civil action.

The Tribunal denied requests to intervene by several organizations and individuals for failure to serve the parties and establish a sufficient interest.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, production of Commission files, and to add a party.

The Tribunal stayed summonses to witness issued by the applicant, finding the witnesses were not required for the preliminary hearing, but ordered the respondents to produce documents relevant to their request to dismiss.

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

The Tribunal set a schedule for submissions, but the applicant failed to file them or communicate with the Tribunal after her counsel withdrew.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss for abandonment, giving the applicant 14 days to respond.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

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

The respondent City of Toronto requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, alleging the applicant violated an undertaking to treat parties respectfully.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and reprisal in the form of termination.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR).

The Tribunal found that the EIBR appropriately dealt with the issue of whether the termination was discriminatory, concluding it was due to misconduct.

However, the EIBR did not address the underlying sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application but allowed the harassment claims to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of reprisal and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not explain how the respondents' behaviour related to claiming a right under the Code or association with a person identified by a Code ground.

The applicant failed to provide submissions addressing the jurisdictional issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not raise matters within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination following her termination during a company-wide restructuring.

The respondent requested early dismissal because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a lump sum payment.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress, lack of capacity, or unconscionability that would justify setting aside the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend the hearing.

He provided a new medical note diagnosing him with sleep apnea.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's submissions contained insulting, threatening, and vulgar language that violated his prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the new medical evidence did not explain the applicant's failure to provide advance notice of his inability to attend.

The respondents' request for costs was dismissed as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The responding parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the applicants' late disclosure of a 53-page expert report and additional documents.

The applicants opposed the adjournment and alternatively sought reimbursement for their expert's travel costs and fees.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the responding parties adequate time to review the late disclosure and prepare for cross-examination.

The Tribunal declined to order costs against the responding parties, noting the adjournment was necessitated by the applicants' failure to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions, including bifurcating the hearing to address liability before damages.