HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by a WSIB claims adjudicator who allegedly made inappropriate comments about the applicant's depression while denying benefits for a physical injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal decided to defer the application in its entirety, finding that the issues were intimately linked and that it would be an improper duplication of proceedings to have them run simultaneously.

The Tribunal also cautioned the applicant regarding the use of uncivil and insulting language in his submissions.

The respondent union requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The union argued the application was moot, settled by a prior agreement between the applicant and his employer, and disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union was not a party to the settlement with the employer and provided no consideration for the release.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations went beyond a simple failure to represent and established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the union to file its position on the applicant's requested remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the fair and orderly administration of justice favoured deferring the application until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent at a conference in August 2007.

The application was filed approximately 18 months later, outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was attempting to resolve the matter with the corporate respondent and did not know the personal respondent was not an employee until August 2008.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the possible Code violation in August 2007 and that efforts to pursue rights without filing an application do not justify waiving the limitation period.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

The respondents brought a request for early dismissal, arguing the corporate respondent is a federally-regulated business because it provides food services to inter-provincial railway companies.

The Tribunal applied the dependency rule and found that the corporate respondent's services are integral to inter-provincial transportation works.

As such, the business falls under federal jurisdiction and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents provided most of the requested particulars but objected to providing the start and end dates of various programs, arguing the information was marginally relevant and difficult to produce.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the requested dates were not arguably relevant at this stage, and declined to order further particulars.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination application.

She argued that there was new evidence from five witnesses and cited other factors, including medication impairment and inadequate preparation by her counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no explanation for why the witnesses could not have been called earlier and concluding that the other factors did not justify reconsideration.

The applicant, a security guard with diabetes, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on disability after she developed a foot infection and could not wear the required steel-toed boots for foot patrols.

The employer offered temporary alternative work at other locations without foot patrols, which the applicant refused due to a longer commute.

The Tribunal found that the employer met its duty to accommodate by offering reasonable alternative work, and that the applicant failed to participate in the accommodation process.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights complaint, arguing the parties had reached a binding settlement.

The complainant had verbally agreed to sign minutes of settlement but later refused.

The Tribunal found that the minutes of settlement contained an express condition precedent requiring ratification and approval by the respondent Board.

Because the complainant revoked her agreement before the Board ratified the settlement, no binding contract was formed.

The respondent's request was dismissed and the hearing of the complaint was ordered to proceed.

The applicant requested that her deferred human rights application proceed due to delays in the grievance arbitration process regarding her termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the grievance process had not yet concluded, and maintained its earlier decision to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievances.

The applicant, a student with autism spectrum disorder, filed an application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings, citing an inability to access the curriculum.

The Tribunal declined the request, finding the circumstances were not meaningfully different from other special education cases and that the complexity of the issues warranted the standard response timeframe.

The Tribunal also ordered the use of initials to protect the minor applicant's privacy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal after her part-time position was converted to full-time, which interfered with her childcare obligations.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that a prior grievance settlement had appropriately resolved the matter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed grievances under a collective agreement raising identical issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were part of the ongoing grievance process.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of religion and disability.

She sought reconsideration based on alleged new evidence regarding a person performing pattern making after her layoff, and claimed she felt intimidated during the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence could reasonably have been obtained earlier and that her claim of intimidation was unfounded given she was represented by counsel at the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to grant him an adjournment to obtain documents ordered produced in an interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, noting that the respondents had complied with the production order because the requested performance appraisals and notes did not exist, and mere disagreement with production rulings is not a basis for reconsideration.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application against the personal respondent, Dr. Joseph Belsito, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding parking accommodation, along with a Request for Interim Remedy.

The applicant delivered the materials to the respondent by email only, without evidence of the respondent's consent to email delivery as required by Rule 1.21.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to properly deliver the materials using an approved method before the Request for Interim Remedy would be considered.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Windsor Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator intentionally failed to arrive at a correct decision as a reprisal for previous complaints and that the decision did not reflect the evidence.

The Tribunal reviewed the exhibits and notes of the oral evidence, finding no inconsistency between the evidence tendered and the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

At the scheduled hearing, the respondents failed to appear, and their representative requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal noted that the parties were involved in an ongoing related proceeding under the Employment Standards Act regarding severance pay, which was scheduled for a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Finding that the concurrent proceeding raised the same factual issues regarding the termination of the applicant's employment, the Tribunal deferred further consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act process to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of her application.

The request was filed more than 30 days after the interim decision, and the applicant offered no explanation for the delay other than experiencing depression.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under the Rules of Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only considered for final decisions, not interim ones.