HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the Bank of Nova Scotia and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondents appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banks fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination from employment.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a labour arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that section 45.1 did not apply because the arbitrator did not consider human rights allegations.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding that all relevant facts were before the arbitrator and allowing the application to proceed would amount to re-litigating the termination.

The applicant requested an order requiring the Ontario Human Rights Commission to produce documents from its investigation file, including a draft witness statement, an amended complaint, an investigator's report, and file handling notes.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the draft witness statement but denied the request for the investigator's report and file handling notes, finding them irrelevant to the adjudicator's independent determination.

The Tribunal also addressed the scope of the allegations, allowing specific new allegations arising from a newly disclosed email but dismissing a general allegation of racial discrimination due to unexplained delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 25.5(c).

The applicant argued that the decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure, noting that a request for reconsideration is not an appeal.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, sex, and pregnancy, specifically regarding her termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) investigation into the same allegations.

The applicant did not provide submissions on the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the LSUC investigation had been underway for some time.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario before the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The applicant's counsel mistakenly delivered the application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission instead of the Tribunal by the deadline.

The Tribunal received the application from the Commission on July 2, 2009.

The Tribunal held that, applying a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, the application was 'made' to the Tribunal when it was delivered to the Commission in error, and directed the respondents to file a response.

The applicant, a three-year-old with asthma, filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability due to exposure to dryer fumes and chemicals.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application citing ongoing and possibly serious health concerns.

The respondent did not take a position on the request but indicated a willingness to mediate.

The Tribunal found that the health concerns constituted urgent circumstances and granted the request to expedite, directing the matter to early mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his request to return to work following a stress leave.

The applicant attended the hearing unrepresented and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the employer's requirement that the applicant complete a Functional Abilities Form as part of its established return-to-work protocol did not contravene the duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that his human rights application be scheduled for a hearing, arguing that the arbitration to which it was deferred was not proceeding.

The respondents objected, noting that the parties had reached a settlement agreement at arbitration that resolved the application.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the requests for 90 days to allow for the implementation of the settlement, noting that proceeding with the application in the face of a settlement could amount to an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by terminating his employment.

After a period of medical leave, the employer proposed a graduated return to work based on an independent medical assessment.

The applicant refused to return to work, insisting he needed to be one hundred percent recovered.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer had proposed a reasonable accommodation and that the applicant had breached his duty to facilitate the accommodation process by refusing to participate.

The applicants filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of services.

Following the death of the applicant Mir Muhammed Shaikh, the applicants' representative advised she was unable to obtain instructions.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed.

After the applicants' representative and the estate failed to respond to a Request for Order and a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal warned the applications would be dismissed as abandoned.

Receiving no response, the Tribunal dismissed both applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She brought a request to expedite the application, citing concerns that the respondents might delete or modify evidence she previously had access to during her employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's concerns about the potential loss of evidence were general and speculative, and did not meet the high threshold of urgency required to expedite an application.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' disclosure obligations and the potential for negative inferences if evidence is destroyed address the applicant's concerns.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference due to a medical appointment and a court family access arrangement.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had known of the hearing date for over a month and provided insufficient details to justify granting an adjournment so close to the scheduled date.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer, three managers, and an insurance company.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to consolidate the matter with his earlier transition application and allowed the union to intervene.

The Tribunal also granted the employer's request to remove the individually-named managers as respondents, noting the employer conceded vicarious liability.

Requests by the employer and the insurer for early dismissal based on lack of particulars, delay, and lack of jurisdiction were denied as premature, though the applicant was ordered to provide further particulars regarding the benefits plan allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and harassment during his six-month employment.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not provide a valid explanation for his absence, which the Tribunal found to be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal proceeded to hear the respondents' evidence, which straightforwardly denied the allegations and was corroborated by coworker statements.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence, found the applicant's allegations unsubstantiated, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent submitted that the application was stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions or advise if he had sought leave to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision stating that the application appears abandoned and will be dismissed unless the applicant provides written submissions within five days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex and reprisal against a housing co-operative, its manager, and nine members of its Board of Directors.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the Board members on the basis that the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by them.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions that the Board approves the manager's decisions regarding internal unit transfers, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Board members should be removed as personal respondents at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to all respondents, who may later make submissions on jurisdiction or request removal as parties.

The applicant and respondent made a joint request for a final order to resolve an application regarding family status accommodation.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a consent order pursuant to s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing the respondent to schedule the applicant for work subject to specific conditions, including no weekend, early morning, or late evening shifts, until there is a material change in her family status obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite reminders.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual respondent to file a Response within 7 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant, a 62-year-old internal candidate, alleged age discrimination after he was unsuccessful in his application for a promotion to assistant area manager.

The respondent hired a younger external candidate, citing the applicant's history of difficulties with authority and lack of enthusiasm for workplace changes as the reasons for his rejection.

The Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination, concluding that the respondent's decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory concerns about the applicant's suitability and fit for a management role.

The application was dismissed.