HRTO 2011

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a complaint and investigation under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application of section 45.1 in the context of the Police Services Act is a significant issue arising in multiple cases.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day conference call to hear oral submissions from the parties on this issue and invited potential interveners to file requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and reprisal against Legal Aid Ontario and two of its employees.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondents improperly denied her a second legal aid certificate to appeal her criminal conviction, 'doctored' her legal aid file, and conspired with her former lawyer and the Crown.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations without any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability against St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited and its vice-president.

The respondents argued that the applicant was actually employed by Leslie Trucking Limited, a federally regulated inter-provincial trucking company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed by Leslie Trucking Limited, which regularly and continuously transports goods beyond Ontario's borders.

Consequently, the matter falls under federal jurisdiction and the application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination pending the determination of her claim for vacation and termination pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while there may be some factual overlap, the ESA claim did not appear to deal with the main issue in the human rights application, which was the reason for the termination of employment.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal filed requests to add additional respondents, amend her application, and obtain production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to add respondents and amend the application, finding insufficient connection to the original allegations, significant delay, and potential prejudice given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request for production in part, ordering the disclosure of arguably relevant documents relating to the termination of the applicant's union membership, workplace policies, and her prior complaints.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session and failing to respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a student support worker and legal guardian of a troubled student at the same school, alleged that the school board discriminated against him on the basis of family status when it terminated his contract.

The school board maintained that the applicant was terminated because he inappropriately used his paid work hours to advocate for his ward, creating a conflict of interest and disrupting staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no clear link between the applicant's family status and his termination, as the dismissal resulted from his inability to separate his role as an employee from his role as a parent during school hours.

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 the completion of two concurrent union grievances arising from the same workplace events.

The Tribunal found that the grievances and the application arose from the same complex web of workplace allegations and that an arbitrator had already been appointed.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that the arbitrator has the authority to apply human rights law.

The applicant, a South Asian man, alleged racial and gender discrimination and reprisal after being denied a Superintendent position with the respondent school board.

The Tribunal found that while the predominant reason for not hiring the applicant—his lack of experience as an elementary school principal—was credible and non-discriminatory, the Director of Education's negative impression of his leadership style was influenced by racial stereotypes and his past complaints of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that racial discrimination and reprisal were factors in the decision, violating the Human Rights Code, though the applicant would not have been hired regardless.

The gender discrimination claim was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically challenging the employer's Modified Work Program which subjected him to temporary layoffs due to his permanent medical restrictions.

The respondents requested particulars and sought to dismiss allegations relating to periods before October 2008 due to delay.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations prior to March 2007 for delay, finding no series of incidents connecting them to later events and no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant was ordered to provide a detailed chronology and particulars for the period from March 2007 to October 2009.

The applicant's request for further disclosure of documents was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation against St. Lawrence College, Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston Police, and the RCMP.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations against St. Lawrence College fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant alleged he was banned from campus and required to take anti-psychotic medication to return.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to particularize his allegations against the College.

The application was dismissed against the other three respondents as no differential treatment was alleged against them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, a national telecommunications company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent is a federally regulated entity falling under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision staying the proceeding due to the respondent's bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay was lifted or if other steps were taken to proceed.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding her special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the Social Benefits Tribunal as a respondent and corrected the name of the remaining respondent to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, as no parties objected to these changes.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to produce the applicant's special diet allowance application forms and current allowance information to assist in determining next steps.

The applicant, who is deceased, had an application filed on his behalf by an individual claiming to be in charge of his estate.

The Tribunal repeatedly directed the individual to confirm her status as Estate Trustee or advise if she intended to seek appointment as estate administrator.

After failing to respond to the Tribunal's directions and warnings, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal previously granted a request to expedite the hearing and scheduled it for September 2011.

The respondent's representative immediately advised the Tribunal of a scheduling conflict for those dates.

The Tribunal cancelled the September hearing dates and directed that a revised notice of hearing be issued for alternative dates in October or November.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that he was unable to attend because he had to work.

The Tribunal found that choosing to work instead of attending the hearing did not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration, especially given the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and the applicant's history of abandoned applications.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a female general labourer, alleged she was terminated from her employment after two days because of her sex.

The respondents claimed she quit by failing to show up for work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was fired and that her sex was a factor in the termination, specifically noting the personal respondent's unhappiness with a female labourer using the office washroom.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay $6,390 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to post a Human Rights Code card in their workplace.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response despite being sent two Notices of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without its participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response and explain the delay before proceeding under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment, while simultaneously filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) due to uncertainty over whether the employment fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application until the CHRC determined the jurisdictional issue.

As the request was unopposed and deferral would prevent inconsistent decisions on jurisdiction, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.