HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the Employment Standards claim regarding termination and severance pay could involve examining the circumstances of the applicant's employment and termination, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions and impacting potential damages.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the lawyer with carriage of their case left the firm and other lawyers were unavailable.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the circumstances justified a brief delay, and directed the parties to provide new available dates.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously found that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit was a 'levy, fee, tax or other periodic payment imposed by law' under s. 10(1) of the Human Rights Code and therefore fell outside the social area of 'services'.

The applicant argued this interpretation conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with established case law and holding that the applicant's proposed interpretation would create an arbitrary distinction between tax credits and separate tax transition payments.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit was a tax or periodic payment imposed by law under s. 10(1) of the Human Rights Code, and therefore fell outside the social area of services.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that reconsideration is not an appeal.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, which were previously consolidated.

The Tribunal noted that one of the personal respondents had not filed a Response or confirmed adoption of the corporate respondent's Response, despite a previous interim decision directing him to do so within 35 days.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final five days to file a Response or confirm adoption of the existing Response, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a work-related repetitive strain injury.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB has the authority to consider the accommodation issues and that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and be unfair to the parties.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB process.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and sent a Confirmation of Hearing notice to the parties.

Neither party attended the hearing at the scheduled time, nor did they communicate with the Tribunal to explain their absence.

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

The applicant, who suffers from mental health disabilities and diabetes, alleged that his former employer failed to accommodate his disabilities, disciplined him for disability-related issues, and subjected him to harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical information to trigger the specific accommodations he demanded, such as exemptions from call-in procedures and unauthorized toilet breaks.

The employer acted reasonably based on the limited information available and the applicant's lack of cooperation in the accommodation process.

The allegations of harassment and reprisal were also dismissed as the employer's disciplinary actions were found to be legitimate and not retaliatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, marital status, and age, arising from the respondents' enforcement of co-op by-laws regarding residency.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of their related application before the Superior Court of Justice seeking to evict the applicant's roommate.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that concurrent proceedings could result in inconsistent findings of fact or law, as both matters require an interpretation of the co-op by-laws.

The respondent requested a third adjournment of the hearing, citing health reasons and the need to consult a psychiatrist following a kidney transplant.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, finding that the medical note provided was insufficient to establish that the respondent was medically unable to participate.

The Tribunal noted the late notice of the request and the need to balance fairness to the applicant, directing that the hearing proceed as scheduled with accommodations if necessary.

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

The Tribunal issued a Registrar's Letter requesting the applicant to advise of her intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in determining the date of the last incident of discrimination and failed to properly assess the evidence and his reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the decision, which are not valid grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The Tribunal concluded that there were no new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, or matters of public importance to justify reconsidering the decision.

The corporate respondent requested an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondent and strike the allegation of age discrimination.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the corporate respondent accepted liability for the individual respondent's actions and the applicant consented.

The Tribunal also struck the age discrimination claim because the applicant failed to plead any material facts supporting it, other than a bald assertion that the respondent hired young advisors.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the facts and human rights issues substantially overlapped with ongoing union grievances filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondent and the union agreed to the deferral, while the applicant did not reply.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent restaurant.

The Tribunal previously deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations after it failed to respond and appeared to be evading service.

A part-owner subsequently contacted the Tribunal, explaining that correspondence had been directed to a former manager and returned unopened due to a change in ownership.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation, set aside its previous decision, accepted the late response, and directed the matter to a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing both a non-work-related foot injury and a work-related arm injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending a related WSIB process.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the status of the WSIB claim was unclear and it was uncertain whether the WSIB was adjudicating the subject-matter of the application.

The respondent was ordered to file a Response.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time and a copy of a tape recording from a Tribunal mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request for the tape recording, noting that mediations are not normally recorded.

The request for an extension of time was also denied, as the Tribunal found the applicant had sufficient notice of the hearing date despite an initial administrative error in delivering the hearing notice.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the applicant's union to clarify whether it intended to represent the applicant at the hearing or attend as an affected party, and to file a Request to Intervene if the latter.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

The personal respondent filed a response, noting he was no longer employed by the corporate respondent and suggesting it may have dissolved.

The corporate respondent failed to file a response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to provide any available contact information for the corporate respondent, and directing the corporate respondent to either file a response or advise if it had dissolved or become insolvent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and generalized bullying by her employer, which led to a medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal and bullying allegations for lack of jurisdiction, as they had no nexus to a protected ground under the Code.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations regarding the employer's failure to accommodate her return to work on staggered hours could potentially amount to discrimination on the basis of disability.

As the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident, the Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal noted that the facts and human rights issues in the application substantially overlapped with those in the grievance.

Applying its general practice of deferring applications where an ongoing grievance covers the same issues, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance.