HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add marital status, creed, and sex as grounds of discrimination, and to increase her claim for general damages to $25,000.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it was timely, caused no prejudice to the respondents, and did not add new factual allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a deferred human rights application following the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act matter, and requested that the application be expedited.

The respondent agreed to reactivation but opposed expedition.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application but denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Rules of Procedure and that the delay did not constitute truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent denied funding for the drug Phosphate Novartis under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege differential treatment, as he did not claim that others received funding for the drug or that his disability was a factor in the denial.

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

The complainant requested reconsideration of two previous Tribunal decisions regarding remedies for a breach of settlement.

She argued the decisions conflicted with prior Tribunal jurisprudence and incorrectly applied contract law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decisions had already addressed the prior jurisprudence and that the new contract law argument could have been raised earlier and did not involve a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of public assistance and association with persons in receipt of public assistance.

The respondent advised that the issues were the subject of an ongoing Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

After the applicant and her solicitor failed to respond to multiple Case Assessment Directions and communications from the respondent, the Tribunal found that the applicant no longer intended to proceed.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a riding instructor who suffers from panic attacks, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After requesting accommodation, her hours were drastically reduced and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The respondent failed to reply to the application and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant and terminated her employment because of her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $3,684.40 for lost wages and $10,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents.

The corporate respondent had failed to comply with disclosure rules and demanded the applicant's counsel visit its office to review documents and pay for copies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the corporate respondent to immediately provide a list of relevant documents and produce them by a specified date, or formally claim privilege.

The respondents requested an order removing the Chief of Police as a personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The applicant opposed the removal, arguing the Chief was institutionally responsible for training officers.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the London Police Services Board is a corporate respondent that accepts vicarious liability for its members and has the power to compel the Chief of Police to implement training if ordered as a remedy.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities because of religion.

Along with the application, the applicant requested a closed-door hearing and a publication ban, arguing that publication could invite reprisal and religious bigotry.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence to support the applicant's bald assertions and holding that the circumstances did not justify overriding the strong public interest in open proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment following his termination over sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The applicant argued that his ongoing attempts to have the employer investigate the allegations constituted a continuing contravention.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that attempts to dispute a termination are not separate acts of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision cautioning them of the consequences of failing to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation and are deemed to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions before a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the denial of sick leave benefits and a Record of Employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had previously filed union grievances concerning the same facts and issues.

Despite the applicant's concern about a change in union representation, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act claim alleging breaches of pregnancy and parental leave provisions.

Neither party made submissions on the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, noting that the remedies available under both statutes are similar.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

Given the significant overlap between the proceedings, the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, and the lack of objection from the applicant, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate her return to work.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred before April 16, 2009, when the respondent offered suitable work, making the April 20, 2010 application untimely.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, rejecting arguments that her mental health condition, fear of reprisal, or pending grievance proceedings justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, family status, and marital status against his employer, his union, and two benefits administrators.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all claims except for the allegation that the employer and union discriminated on the basis of age by requiring employees under 65 to pay a higher monthly health care contribution than those over 65.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the claims regarding the duty to accommodate, union appointments, and benefits administration.

The respondents requested an order requiring the applicants to amend and re-file their human rights applications separately, and sought a 60-day extension to file their responses.

The applicants consented to amending their applications but opposed the 60-day extension.

One applicant also sought to amend her application to add allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to amend and re-file their applications separately within 10 days, permitted the addition of the reprisal allegations, and granted the respondents 21 days from receipt of the amended applications to file their responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation regarding discipline imposed in 2008 and a poster displayed in 2009.

The respondent argued the 2008 allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the 2008 events and the 2009 poster did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2008 as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The allegation regarding the 2009 poster was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by his supervisor.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in November 2008 resolving two grievances, including one for age discrimination.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with allegations of events prior to the November 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application were struck to the extent they related to events preceding the settlement, while the remainder of the application was allowed to proceed.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, which alleged sexual harassment and discrimination in employment.

The respondent denied the allegations and asserted the applicant was terminated for performance concerns and insubordination.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the matters raised were within its jurisdiction, there was a significant factual dispute, and it could not be said that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing on the merits.