HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $1,000 within the agreed four-week period.

The respondents missed the deadline by approximately one week due to their counsel's unexpected medical leave, but promptly offered to deliver the funds upon realizing the error.

The applicant refused the funds and sought to have the settlement rescinded.

The Tribunal found the delay was a trivial breach caused by inadvertence that resulted in no significant harm to the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the settlement and ordered the respondents to pay the original $1,000 settlement amount.

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

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a request to intervene, and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to defer the application, finding significant overlap between the grievance and the human rights application, and noting the applicant did not oppose the deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated because of her race and colour.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant was a human resources professional who understood her rights.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because of disability with respect to employment.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing grievance proceedings filed by the applicant's union based on the same facts.

As the applicant did not oppose the request and the grievance proceedings involved the same human rights issues, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The corporate respondent was placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondents' counsel advised the Tribunal that the receivership effectively ended the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she wishes to continue her application against the corporate and/or individual respondent, and to provide submissions on the effect of the receivership if she intends to pursue the application.

The applicant, a probationary caretaker, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sexual solicitation against a fellow caretaker and the school board.

He claimed the fellow caretaker made sexual advances and used a racial slur during an altercation, and that the employer failed to investigate and reprised against him by extending his probation, transferring him, and terminating his employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no sexual solicitation, that the alleged slur was either not made or did not amount to discrimination in the context of a heated altercation initiated by the applicant, and that the employer's actions were based on legitimate performance and behavioural concerns rather than reprisal.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, sex, and reprisal.

Following interim decisions that dismissed parts of the applications due to delay, a summary hearing was convened to determine if the remaining aspects had a reasonable prospect of success.

During the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the remaining parts of her applications.

The Province did not oppose the withdrawal, while the Association of Law Officers of the Crown opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the applications, noting that no responses had been filed and no prejudice was established.

The applicant sought leave to withdraw her human rights application, which had been the subject of several previous interim decisions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondent noted it would not pursue its application for judicial review of a previous interim decision due to the withdrawal.

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

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

The respondent's request for early production of documents was denied as premature.

The Tribunal dismissed portions of the application relating to unsafe working conditions and verbal harassment for lack of jurisdiction and delay, but declined to dismiss pre-March 2010 allegations at this stage.

The applicant's request to amend her application to add sexual harassment allegations was denied due to significant delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming that the respondent College's opioid prescribing guidelines negatively impacted his wife's ability to obtain pain medication.

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

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a 'service' to the applicant's wife and that the national opioid guidelines did not constitute discrimination under the Code.

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

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss allegations of discrimination occurring prior to May 5, 2009, and to remove several named personal respondents.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations were out of time under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit under section 34(2).

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, noting there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability or ability to remedy any alleged Code infringement.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to strike out portions of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondents argued that certain allegations, including those relating to a 2004 job offer, the applicant's wife's employment, and a 2007 workload increase, were out of time and unrelated to creed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the applicant's wife, as they were properly the subject of a separate application.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call evidence on the remaining allegations at the upcoming hearing, provided he could establish a nexus between the events and his creed.

The individual respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found them jointly and severally liable with the corporate respondent for human rights violations.

They argued they were not the directing minds of the organization and that personal liability should not be imposed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the individual respondents were the directing minds, were personally and centrally involved in the acts of discrimination and reprisal, and acted outside the scope of their employment duties.

The Tribunal also noted concerns about the corporate respondent's ability to pay the damages.

The respondent requested an order for the production of various documents from the applicant, including tax returns, passport entries, and medical records.

The applicant agreed to provide most of the documents but disputed the production of all treating physicians' records and a list of travel outside Collingwood.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request for the disputed documents because the respondent failed to comply with Rule 19.4(c), which requires parties to confer and attempt to resolve production issues before seeking an order from the Tribunal.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability, arising from an incident involving access to a pool area.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be expedited and sought an interim remedy of a change of residential location and a meeting with a decision-maker.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the circumstances were not truly urgent.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary relief requested prior to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a complete response despite multiple directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a complete response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against two individual respondents.

He subsequently brought requests to add his employer, Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd., as a respondent and to remove his immediate supervisor, Danilo Raponi.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, the employer is deemed liable for the actions of its employees in the course of their employment.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Union and the Union requested to continue as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also addressed outstanding disclosure issues, noting the corporate respondent's failure to comply with previous disclosure orders, and ordered the respondent to provide contact information for two proposed witnesses.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her employment discrimination applications against York University and the University of Waterloo for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant's union requested leave to intervene, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was resolved through a prior grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss to a half-day preliminary hearing.