HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

During the proceedings, the applicant requested to amend the application to add a claim of reprisal, alleging that his former supervisor made retaliatory comments to co-workers after the application was filed.

The respondent requested to remove the former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's request to amend, finding that the alleged comments could constitute reprisal and there was no unfairness in the timing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions and her continued presence as a party was not necessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the matter was already dealt with through a grievance proceeding and settlement.

The applicant's former union filed a Request to Intervene to address evidence regarding its conduct during the grievance process, as the applicant alleged she did not understand the settlement due to a language barrier.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene for the purposes of the preliminary hearing on whether the matter had been dealt with.

The applicant, a head caretaker, alleged sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

She claimed that inappropriate pictures and a skeleton with male genitalia in the caretakers' lunchroom created a poisoned work environment, and that she was harassed by a Vice-Principal regarding school cleanliness.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent took appropriate and sufficient action to address the inappropriate materials, and that the Vice-Principal's complaints about cleanliness were not based on the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also found no failure to accommodate the applicant's request for a transfer.

The applicant, a Black physician and assistant professor in the Division of Cardiology, alleged that he experienced racial discrimination when the respondent University denied his application for promotion to associate professor and in a subsequent performance appraisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for the denial of promotion, namely the applicant's lack of peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed funding as a principal investigator, as well as a teaching record that did not meet the 'very good' standard.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support an inference that the applicant's race was a factor in the promotion process or the performance appraisal, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including that the exclusion of First Nations constables from the Police Services Act is discriminatory.

The respondents sought leave to amend their Response to argue that the provision of policing services to the Tyendinaga Mohawk Police Service constitutes a 'special program' under section 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the applicant would not be prejudiced as the hearing was ongoing and there was sufficient time to research and respond to the new defence.

The respondents in one application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to consolidate their matter with another application involving the same applicant, allegations, and series of events.

The applicant and the respondents in the second application consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, noting that proceeding together would facilitate a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her employer and union failed to accommodate her sensitivity to scented products.

The respondent union and its representative requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against them for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no factual foundation or allegations of differential treatment that could establish a Code violation regarding the union's representation.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the discrimination allegations were dealt with in a previous application and that the reprisal allegations, based on a civil suit and threat of litigation, were protected by absolute privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the substance of the discrimination claims had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code, and that pleadings in judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege and cannot form the basis of a reprisal claim.

The applicant alleged gender discrimination and reprisal in her employment with General Motors.

She claimed that men were preferentially hired into Tool & Die positions over her, despite her qualifications as a Mould Maker.

The Tribunal found that the hiring decisions were based on collective agreement provisions, preferential hiring rights, and specific trade qualifications, not gender.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding no evidence that the discipline imposed on the applicant was intended as retaliation for her human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

Several organizations, including legal clinics and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, sought leave to intervene in a human rights application against the Toronto Police Service.

The requests were unopposed.

The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, finding that the proposed intervenors would contribute to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.

The scope of the interventions and whether evidence would be called was deferred to a case management call.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in the application.

The request was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, finding that the Commission would contribute to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.

The scope of the intervention was deferred to a future case management call.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing pending the filing of a request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigator.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but provided no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting related applications and overlapping issues.

The applicant, an 88-year-old man with a mobility disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

He requested permission to park his motorized scooter in his condominium parking spot and asked the condominium corporation to install automatic doors between the garage and elevators.

The respondents failed to respond to the application and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant in a timely manner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to jointly pay a $5,000 donation to the March of Dimes, amend the condominium by-laws to permit mobility devices in the parking garage, and complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to provide modified work following an injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing, citing meetings within the one-year period where the respondent allegedly refused to return him to work.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that the application be served on the respondent.

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

The applicant subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The corporate respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer proceeding.

The respondents requested an order to remove Louise Korhonen as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for her conduct, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her personally as she was acting in a representative capacity.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services relating to the smoking of medical marihuana.

Following a decision in a similar matter, the Commission and the complainant advised the Tribunal that they did not intend to proceed further.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging failure to accommodate pregnancy-related needs be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only addressed unpaid wages and explicitly noted that the failure to modify work was not an employment standard and was the subject of a separate tribunal proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation, sick leave benefits, and harassment.

The employer and the applicant's union were concurrently involved in a grievance arbitration process addressing the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

Finding that the grievance arbitration was scheduled to proceed shortly and would address the same issues, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but died the following day.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's executor to confirm whether the estate intended to proceed with the application.

When the executor failed to respond within the stipulated 14-day period, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.