HRTO 2011

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant, a former swimming pool instructor and lifeguard, alleged that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her co-workers and management on the basis of age, sex, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The Tribunal found profound credibility issues with the applicant's evidence, noting that her allegations were significantly embellished, inconsistent, and improbable.

Conversely, the respondents' witnesses provided credible and consistent testimony.

The Tribunal concluded that while there was significant workplace conflict, there was insufficient evidence to establish that any of the respondents' actions were connected to a protected Code ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and failure to accommodate a disability.

The applicant had also filed two grievances through his union covering the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination 16 months after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that he initially pursued a grievance through his union and was advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to complete the grievance process before filing.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and reprisal by his employer and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding his return to work and accommodation of his disability.

The WSIB requested an order to dismiss the application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its adjudicative decisions.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss at this preliminary stage, finding it was not clear that the allegations related solely to the WSIB's adjudicative function, and allowed the application to proceed in the normal course.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

He subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order to stop the respondents from disciplining him, alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the request, as the Tribunal could reinstate and compensate him if a Code violation was ultimately found.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene and issued procedural directions regarding the addition of a corporate respondent and service on a former employee.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance and a pending appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

Both parties agreed that the application should be deferred.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process pursuant to Rule 14.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and a poisoned work environment.

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 provided submissions arguing that the last incident occurred within the one-year limitation period when her request for a transfer was denied.

The Tribunal found that it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and ordered that the application be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent does not offer direct deposit.

A summary hearing was scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment because he could not obtain and disclose documents 14 days in advance.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request because disclosure obligations do not apply to summary hearings under Rule 19A.2.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay general damages as agreed.

The respondent filed a Response stating it had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found the proceedings were stayed pursuant to s. 69 of the BIA and directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay is lifted.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondents required him to sign consent forms before conducting an independent psychological assessment requested by his insurer.

The applicant claimed he had a memory disability and requested to review the assessment report before signing the forms, which the respondents refused.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the requirement to sign the consent forms was not discriminatory and did not preclude the applicant from seeking accommodation from his insurer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was previously deferred pending the completion of a related grievance process.

The applicant brought a request to re-activate the application.

After receiving submissions from the union and the respondents confirming that the relevant grievances had been settled or abandoned, the Tribunal found that the grievance process had concluded.

The request to re-activate the application was granted, and the respondents were directed to file their responses.

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

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

The applicant provided an explanation for the delay, citing technical issues and a medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations predating the applicant's termination in December 2009, finding no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding the December 2009 termination, finding it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal cancel a previously ordered Summary Hearing based on additional information in his amended Reply.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mere denial of the respondents' explanation was insufficient to cancel the hearing, as he must describe the evidence linking the alleged adverse employment results to prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The request to cancel was denied, and the Tribunal ordered the Summary Hearing to proceed.

The applicant, a probationary support worker at a group home, alleged her employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting that a resident had been yelled at by a manager.

She also alleged the respondent reprised against her by falsely reporting income to Service Canada, jeopardizing her Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment for performance-related reasons was made before the respondent received her report.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it did not falsely report income to Service Canada.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, disability, and reprisal.

The respondents objected to the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting it was preferable to have the full dispute in one application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's union intervenor status.

Finally, the Tribunal requested further information from the union regarding the status of related grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

In an interim decision following a multi-day hearing, the applicant sought an adverse inference because the individual respondent was not called to testify.

The respondents claimed he was medically unfit to testify but provided minimal medical documentation.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the individual respondent's doctor to provide an opinion on his medical fitness to testify during the hearing dates, and set a schedule for closing submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, noting the applicant had signed a full and final release shortly after filing the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment after a workplace injury.

The WSIB had previously determined that the modified work offered by the respondent was suitable.

The Tribunal considered the overlap in factual issues but noted that the WSIB proceedings would not consider human rights remedies or whether the dismissal violated the Code.

Furthermore, the WSIB appeal was only at its initial stages.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral would not be fair, just, and expeditious, and dismissed the request to defer.

The respondent in a sexual harassment application requested the production of a Crown Brief containing police records of approximately 50 other criminal investigations involving the applicant, many of a sexual nature.

Following a determination that the documents were arguably relevant, the Crown, the Toronto Police Services, and the applicant consented to their production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the Crown Brief subject to specific redactions and strict confidentiality conditions.