HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the non-renewal of a commercial lease.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents (employees of the respondent Board).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability, had the ability to remedy any infringement, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals personally.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent from the human rights application, noting that the personal respondent was acting in her employment capacity and the corporate respondent would be liable for her conduct.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal granted the request, removed the personal respondent, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability when her collective agreement benefits were terminated.

Over two years later, she sought to amend her application to include an allegation that her employment was also terminated at the same time, claiming she only learned of this during mediation.

The Tribunal ordered a conference call hearing to determine whether the amendment should be permitted under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, specifically whether the delay was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to his ongoing medical difficulties and absences resulting from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting his WSIB claim had already been denied.

The respondent argued for deferral until the WSIB appeal period expired.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding it unfair to do so when the WSIB claim was decided and there was no evidence of an appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of sex and age, claiming his testimony was not accepted in family and criminal court proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that court decisions do not constitute a 'service' under the Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for abandonment and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability, claiming she was terminated after her employer learned she was pregnant.

She had also filed an Employment Standards Claim regarding the same subject matter, which was subsequently dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal determined that deferral was no longer necessary as the claim was resolved, but scheduled a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Employment Standards proceeding appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code while a related union grievance based on the same facts was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which no parties responded.

Applying its general practice, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of association, 64 months after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit.

The applicant submitted that she only realized the alleged discrimination when her husband recently experienced discrimination based on creed at the same employer.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against a hospital and a doctor.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and Tribunal procedure, raising issues with credibility findings, medical evidence regarding his intoxication and glucose levels, and the admissibility of certain documents.

The Tribunal found no basis to alter its credibility assessments or factual findings and concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a deferral pending the conclusion of an investigation before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it appropriate to await the CHRC's determination on jurisdiction before proceeding.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of two personal respondents but opposed the removal of a third, who allegedly harassed her and sent a note to the WSIB characterizing her claim as a 'scam'.

The Tribunal removed the two consented respondents but declined to remove the third at this stage, noting ambiguity in the corporate respondent's position on vicarious liability for her actions, leaving the issue for the hearing adjudicator.

The Toronto Police Association, recently added as a respondent in respect of a reprisal allegation, requested particulars, early disclosure of documents, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal found the reprisal allegations insufficiently detailed and ordered the applicant to provide particulars.

The request for early document disclosure was denied as premature.

The Association was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding discipline and the revocation of an employee's license.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to operate an insurance brokerage without the required two contracted insurance markets for up to two years.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy, as it would allow the applicant to bypass established regulatory requirements and create an extraordinary new state of affairs.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to amend his application and reconsider an earlier interim decision that deferred his application pending a grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, reconsideration is only available for final decisions, and the applicant used the incorrect form.

The Tribunal also noted it cannot deal with requests to amend the application while it remains deferred.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to ill health, family situation, and personal strain, supported by doctors' letters.

The respondents opposed the request, seeking a timely determination.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the applicant made the request in a timely manner and the respondents showed no specific prejudice.

The parties were directed to provide alternative dates before June 17, 2011.

The respondents requested to reschedule a hearing regarding an alleged breach of settlement, citing business commitments.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request because it was not made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, and the respondents failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the 'Toronto Police Service' as the respondent.

The City of Toronto advised that the Toronto Police Service is not a legal entity.

The applicant requested an order to amend the respondent's name.

The Tribunal granted the request, amending the title of proceedings to include the Toronto Police Services Board, the City of Toronto, and the Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service, and directed that the application be sent to all named respondents for their response.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank and falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Following a finding that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of ethnic origin and race, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $8,750 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the seriousness of the discriminatory comments and the termination.

The Tribunal also awarded $4,427 for lost wages, finding that the applicant failed to fully mitigate her damages as her job search was not extensive or comprehensive enough beyond the year of her termination.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and an extension of time to file a Response.

The Tribunal found that the Application lacked sufficient details to allow the respondent to respond or the Tribunal to determine the nature of the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide an amended answer detailing the facts supporting her claim and granted the respondent an extension of time to file a Response.