HRTO 2011

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant relied on newspaper articles published after the decision regarding vacancies and operations at the respondent housing corporation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the articles did not constitute new determinative evidence or demonstrate any mistake in the original decision.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment as a receptionist because of her pregnancy, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy and related high blood pressure were factors in the termination of her employment.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $9,328 for lost wages, $6,000 for lost parental benefits, $601 in pre-judgment interest, and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The personal respondent was not held liable.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, or facilities.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the telephone conference hearing despite receiving notice.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command and several individuals.

Upon learning that her actual employer was Branch 479, the applicant requested to add Branch 479 as a respondent.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the removal of Dominion Command and the addition of Branch 479 as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance and a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer for the WSIB claim but granted the deferral based on the ongoing grievance procedure, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues and the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights legislation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, disability, sex, and sexual solicitation during a hearing before a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the content, reasons, and procedural rulings of an adjudicative decision are not a 'service' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the allegations, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add 'Wilfred Laurier University Staff' as a respondent and requested early production of emails.

The faculty association sought intervenor status.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the respondent because it is not a legal entity, and denied the document production request as premature.

The Tribunal granted the faculty association's request to intervene, noting its interest as the bargaining agent for the named respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed (vegetarianism) and family status against a physician and the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The physician had reported the applicant to the Society after suspecting his three-year-old child required medical treatment for rickets, which the parents were refusing.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claim against the physician was barred by the statutory immunity for mandatory reporting under section 72(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, and there was no evidence linking the Society's child protection actions to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination more than 14 months after receiving an allegedly offensive email from his district manager.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for being filed 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 waiting for a response from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the Tribunal's process and waiting for another body's response did not constitute good faith, especially given the applicant's sophistication and access to legal counsel.

The application was dismissed.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal warned the applicant that the application would be deemed abandoned if she did not respond within 10 days.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions on preliminary issues by December 16, 2010, and was warned that failure to do so would result in the application being considered abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he did not receive an enhanced severance payment negotiated for bargaining unit employees upon the respondent's plant closure.

Following a workplace injury, the applicant had been accommodated in a non-union security guard position.

He also alleged discrimination for not being retained as a security guard to oversee the closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the enhanced severance because he was not a member of the bargaining unit, and that the security guard retained for the closure was employed by an outside company.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination brought a request to add the WSIB as a party and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

A proposed witness, Dr. Thomson, also requested to quash a summons served by the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the WSIB, finding no basis for its inclusion.

The Tribunal stayed the summonses for Dr. Thomson and other witnesses, noting that the hearing was bifurcated and their evidence was not arguably relevant to the first phase.

The request for an adjournment was denied, as the applicant could proceed with her own evidence and the outstanding procedural issues could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant requested that his deferred human rights application be reactivated, alleging a further reprisal by the respondent.

The Tribunal reviewed the provided email exchange and found it to be regular business communication subject to the grievance process.

The Tribunal denied the request, confirming the application remains deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, and directed that no further reactivation requests be considered absent exceptional circumstances.

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

After sending an email indicating she might not want to proceed, the Tribunal directed her to either file a Form 9 to withdraw or confirm her intention to continue.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, challenging written discipline, an unpaid suspension, and an extended probationary period.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of two ongoing union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings addressing the same factual issues, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability, specifically that his employer refused to allow him to return to work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting the grievance process had stalled and expressing dissatisfaction with his union representation.

The respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that although there was substantial overlap between the proceedings, there was no indication that the union or the respondent intended to refer the grievance to arbitration.

The application was ordered to proceed.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against her on the basis of age regarding her placement in a Labour Market Reentry program.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act explicitly provides that decisions under the Act authorizing age distinctions apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a child with autism, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent discriminated against her by denying speech therapy and offering augmentative communication therapy instead.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal clarified the scope of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to events prior to November 2006 as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, finding they did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request for early dismissal based on the Cooper decision, noting the applicant was challenging the respondent's assessment of her needs as discriminatory, rather than challenging the provincial funding regime.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and family status.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed three of the personal respondents, finding their individual conduct was not a central issue and they were named merely due to their managerial positions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the Director of Sales, as the applicant specifically alleged that he treated the applicant differently than white co-workers when granting accommodations, making his conduct a potentially central issue.