HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds but failed to identify a social area or explain how the respondent's actions related to the prohibited grounds.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the application was incomplete, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions detailing the social area, the nature of the alleged discrimination, and its connection to the Code grounds, noting that 'frivolous and vexatious' is no longer a basis for early dismissal under the amended Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent law firm entered into a settlement agreement involving him without consultation.

The respondent, acting as court-appointed counsel for long-term disability beneficiaries in a CCAA proceeding, requested the application be dismissed or deferred pending the court's determination of the settlement.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application but agreed with the parties that deferral was appropriate pending the court's decision on the proposed settlement agreement.

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

He subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking a continuation of his salary retroactive to November 2009, arguing that his loss of income would lead to negative health impacts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that an interim financial remedy was necessary to preserve the Tribunal's ability to order a complete and effective remedy at the conclusion of the hearing.

The respondent requested the removal of the OPP Commissioner as a personal respondent and the deferral of the human rights application pending the completion of a related Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) complaints process.

The applicant consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests, removing the personal respondent and deferring the application until the conclusion of the OCPC process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race in the area of housing against a hydro company, a municipal councillor, a land developer, and a lawyer.

The allegations related to a hydro easement, a noise attenuation fence, and events that occurred between 10 and 20 years prior.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the developer and lawyer due to the applicant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the hydro company and councillor, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence connecting the alleged mistreatment to the applicant's race.

The applicant, a six-year-old boy with autism, alleged discrimination in services after the respondent terminated his funding for Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine if the application could succeed.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to review the clinical correctness of the respondent's discharge decision.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide expert evidence demonstrating that the respondent's discharge criteria had a disproportionate negative impact on children with severe autism.

The application was dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, colour, and ethnic origin when they rejected his application for an Investment Executive position.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the required direct sales experience for the position and was therefore not qualified.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that his non-Canadian experience or ethnic origin played any role in the hiring decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent City of Kingston consented, and the respondent union made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal in the workplace.

During the hearing, several evidentiary issues arose.

The Tribunal ruled that a heavily redacted closure report from a partner abuse program was inadmissible because its author was unavailable to testify.

An academic article on sexual harassment was also excluded as irrelevant hearsay.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to compel the personal respondent's date of birth for a criminal record check, noting that character evidence is generally inadmissible in civil proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of several of the applicant's witnesses, finding their evidence would amount to inadmissible character evidence intended solely to bolster the applicant's credibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sexual orientation, specifically that a repairperson hired by the respondent landlord made a homophobic comment to the applicant's guest.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the substance of the application was being dealt with in an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the respondent's request for deferral before making a determination.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding his employment.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside due to economic duress and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an impending layoff.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely chose the permanent layoff option and that the respondent did not knowingly mislead him.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate and provide modified duties.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The union also requested intervener status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the concurrent grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment six days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was due to emotional distress and efforts to pursue WSIB matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ability to contact other agencies demonstrated he was not so disabled as to be unable to function or file his application on time.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that his layoff from the respondent plumbing and heating company was based on his age, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that he was laid off out of seniority while younger, less senior employees were retained.

The Tribunal found that the layoff was due to legitimate business reasons, including a Ministry of Labour order requiring licensed tradespeople on jobsites, which the applicant was not, and a shift away from the residential sector where the applicant primarily worked.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence that age was a factor in the decision.

The applicant requested a deferral of her human rights application until the completion of her WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a hearing was already scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the outstanding WSIB proceedings had no relevance to this preliminary issue.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's parallel Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim regarding her termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceedings focused on only one element of the discrimination allegations and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the matter, noting that an appeal of the ESA decision was possible and would cause significant delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, regarding his housing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the LTB had considered and dismissed substantially similar allegations, including failure to accommodate regarding accessible parking and harassment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite a previous interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their Responses within five days and explain their delay, warning that failure to comply would result in them being deemed to have accepted the allegations and waived their right to participate.