HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to facilitate her return to work following a disability leave.

The union had also filed a grievance on her behalf alleging a failure to accommodate, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance process.

As all parties agreed to the deferral and the grievance involved the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against him based on race by failing to enforce parking by-laws against his White neighbour.

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

The Tribunal found that beyond general allegations of unfairness and pointing out the different races of the neighbours, the applicant had no evidence to link the respondent's alleged inaction to his race.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her application to add mental disability as a ground of discrimination and to provide further particulars on the impact of the alleged discrimination.

She also requested early production of documents and a pre-hearing protocol.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments minor and without prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the requests for early document production and a pre-hearing protocol as premature, noting that the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances warranted early production under Rule 16.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated three weeks into a contract.

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

The applicant acknowledged he had no evidence linking his alleged mistreatment or termination to his hearing disability or any other protected ground.

Furthermore, his reprisal claim was based on the employer allegedly ignoring his continuous requests for training and system access, rather than retaliation for claiming rights under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Following confirmation by a receiver that the respondent was insolvent, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

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

The personal respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed as a respondent, arguing that the allegations against him were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while some allegations from 2002 were dismissed for delay in a previous interim decision, the allegations relating to a September 2009 audit occurred within one year of the application being filed and were therefore timely.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the completion of an ongoing grievance proceeding filed by the applicant's union.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

Following the WSIB's decision, the applicant filed a request to reactivate her application.

The respondent did not file any response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed that the matter be scheduled for mediation or a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOP).

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to deem the respondent to have waived its rights due to an allegedly late response, finding the response was timely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for early production of his personnel file as premature.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as untimely.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to participate within three weeks, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had decided not to pursue the matter and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a civil action.

Following a judgment in her favour in Small Claims Court, the applicant requested to proceed with her application.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code applies, given the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his union and his former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal.

The union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the employer sought dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the union's handling of the applicant's grievances, including its decision to settle, was discriminatory or failed to accommodate his disability or religion.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the employer was filed beyond the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent Anoo Pelletier filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking her removal as a party on the basis that the accusations against her do not fall under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Anoo Pelletier as a party to the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability following her expulsion from the respondent's paralegal program.

In a Request for an Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought production of her complete academic file.

The respondent had disclosed most documents but withheld marked examinations citing policy concerns.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the marked examinations, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of academic performance raised in the proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the disclosure is subject to the implied undertaking rule, prohibiting the applicant from using the materials for any purpose outside the proceeding.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the respondent school board sought production of the applicant's medical records and consent to access the school psychologist's file and the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the arguably relevant medical records.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant's next friend to consent to the respondent's use of the psychologist's file and the OSR, holding that it would be an abuse of process to rely on these materials while denying the respondent access to them.

Failure to provide consent would result in the dismissal of the application.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's arguably relevant documents, over which the applicant claimed privilege without providing reasons.

The applicant expressed fear that disclosing documents or naming witnesses would lead to intimidation by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to deliver a description of the privilege asserted over each item, in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and set out a process for the respondent to challenge the privilege claims.

The applicants, a married couple, alleged that the respondent church discriminated against them and subjected them to reprisal by denying them church membership.

The wife alleged reprisal for previously filing a human rights complaint against the church, while the husband alleged discrimination based on his marital status and association with his wife.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications after the applicants closed their case, finding they failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the church deferred membership because the applicants had lived together prior to marriage, which the church sincerely believed was sinful, and because of ongoing unresolved conflicts and confrontational behaviour by the applicants, rather than for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

The applicant, an injured worker with a learning disability, alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him by changing his Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) plan from a multi-year academic upgrading program to a short-term retail training program upon learning of his disability.

The WSIB challenged the HRTO's jurisdiction, arguing it had exclusive jurisdiction over benefits under the WSIA.

The HRTO found it had concurrent jurisdiction to hear the human rights claim.

On the merits, the HRTO held that the WSIB discriminated against the applicant by failing to explore accommodations for his learning disability before changing his LMR plan.

The HRTO awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity and ordered the WSIB to amend its LMR policies.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because of ongoing union grievances regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal found that the grievances had not been referred to arbitration despite the passage of time and had been held in abeyance.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that proceeding with the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.