HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal but requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application to ensure finality.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without terms, noting that if the applicant were to file a new application based on the same subject matter, the respondents could object at that time.

The applicant, a temporary legal assistant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, marital status, and reprisal against a law firm and a staffing agency after she was not considered for a subsequent job opening.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were merely speculative and accusatory, and there was no reasonable prospect that she could prove a link between the respondents' actions and any Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance proceeding, or dismissed on the basis that the grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, or dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the grievance was no longer ongoing and had not appropriately dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for delay on a preliminary basis, as the timeliness issue was closely related to the merits of the allegations.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him with respect to employment and union membership because of his disability.

The applicant was denied a Team Leader position due to medical restrictions, and the union declined to pursue a grievance on his behalf.

The Tribunal found that the union did not participate in the formulation of a discriminatory work rule, nor did it impede the employer's reasonable efforts to accommodate, as no such efforts were made.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a union's failure to advocate or pursue a grievance on a human rights issue is not, in itself, a violation of the Code absent evidence that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after his employer refused him work during winter influenza outbreaks because he was not vaccinated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's decision not to be immunized was based on medical considerations rather than sincerely held religious beliefs.

As the Code does not protect against discrimination based on occupation or general unfairness, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing by conference call and provided proper notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as an abuse of process because the parties had previously settled the matter.

The applicant argued that the settlement was not binding on the university because its representative did not sign it, and that the settlement did not address all issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues that were already canvassed and that she failed to establish any criteria justifying reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence after their representative withdrew.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As no response was received, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of family status, claiming his employment was terminated the day he attempted to return from parental leave.

He also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the ESA claim and the Application significantly overlap in focusing on the termination following parental leave, and there is significant overlap in available remedies.

The Application was deferred pending the outcome of the ESA claim.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed their human rights applications as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to present any new facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence as required by Rule 26.5.

The applicants' allegations of bias against the adjudicator were found to be baseless and merely an expression of disagreement with the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The corporate respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a related union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the union and the employer considered the grievance to be resolved, and the applicant was not seeking to continue the grievance process but rather wished to proceed with her human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed that it proceed.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw their human rights application shortly before a scheduled mediation.

The respondents objected, requesting that the application be dismissed with prejudice to prevent future re-filing, citing the time and expense incurred in preparing their response.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file the same allegations in the future, the respondents may raise their objections at that time.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because a concurrent proceeding under the Employment Standards Act was underway addressing similar facts, particularly regarding reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that deferral would prevent concurrent proceedings on the issue of reprisal and avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of their intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, a doctoral student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, disability, and other grounds.

The respondent requested the dismissal of allegations pre-dating October 30, 2008, as untimely, and sought particulars and medical disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the older allegations did not form a series of incidents with the timely ones, as they involved different people, facts, and grounds, and were separated by significant time gaps.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay.

Consequently, the untimely allegations were dismissed.

The respondent's request for particulars was deemed moot, and the request for medical disclosure was denied as its arguable relevance was not established.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging she signed a previous settlement agreement under duress and without legal representation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not allege that the respondent had breached any term of the settlement.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to set aside or void a settlement on the basis of duress under s. 45.9(3), as its authority is limited to remedying actual contraventions by another party.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (alcoholism) after his employment was terminated for intoxicated and inappropriate conduct at a company holiday party.

The applicant claimed he had previously disclosed his alcoholism to a human resources representative when requesting benefit coverage for a prescription medication.

The respondent denied knowledge of the disability, asserting the representative believed the medication was for smoking cessation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had informed the employer of his alcoholism.

Because the employer did not know and could not reasonably have known of the disability, the duty to accommodate was not triggered, and the application was dismissed.

The respondent building owner brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights applications against it.

The applicants alleged harassment and discrimination by security guards while moving out of the apartment building.

The building owner argued the security guards were employees of an independent contractor.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the security guards might be construed as agents of the building owner, as they were enforcing its rules and procedures.

The matter was allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a scheduled grievance arbitration and an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The applicant agreed to deferral pending the arbitration but opposed deferral for the WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration, noting that arbitrators have the power to enforce human rights obligations, and declined to rule on the WSIB deferral request at this stage.