HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused her request to rewrite her nursing examination with accommodations.

The respondent advised the Tribunal that the applicant had also appealed the identical issue to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the HPARB proceeding to avoid duplicative or conflicting decisions.

The applicant, a condominium superintendent, suffered a workplace injury to his toe and provided a doctor's note indicating he could not perform his normal duties for two days.

The respondent employer nonetheless required him to work his regular duties on one of those days.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a person with a disability and had made a clear request for accommodation, which the respondent ignored.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship and awarded $1,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, the LCBO, her co-workers, and her union.

She claimed that her request for a transfer due to criminal harassment by a customer was a request for disability accommodation, and that she was subjected to a poisoned work environment.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish that the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Code at the material times.

The Tribunal also found that the transfer request was made on compassionate grounds and did not trigger a duty to accommodate.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled human rights hearing because she was in Serbia caring for her critically ill mother.

The respondents opposed an indefinite adjournment, arguing that delay could cause prejudice due to fading memories.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, cancelled the upcoming hearing dates, and ordered the applicant to provide a status update within three months, while suspending the respondents' pre-hearing obligations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and a Vice-chair.

The applicant alleged new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, and reasonable apprehension of bias, including claims that the adjudicator was practicing law without a license and had a conflict of interest due to a past neighbourhood connection.

The Tribunal found no new determinative facts, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant consented to the deferral, and the respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the grievance and the application dealt with virtually identical subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Superior Court judge, alleging discrimination based on the judge's dismissal of his civil case.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because the judge's adjudicative decisions are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Furthermore, the application was filed more than four years after the last alleged incident, and the applicant's lack of awareness of the Tribunal did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and age.

The Drake respondents requested the removal of four individual respondents from the application.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondents, as there was a corporate respondent capable of responding and providing a remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents and directed the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations within 15 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for failure to provide particulars and to remove the individual respondents.

The applicant refused to comply with previous Tribunal directions to provide particulars and stated he would not identify his witnesses prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties since the corporate respondents could respond to the claims.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately but ordered the applicant to provide full particulars and a witness list within specified deadlines, warning that failure to comply may result in the application being dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal and discrimination, add a new remedy, and disclose the institutional respondent's financial statement.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was late and prejudicial given the impending hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request in its entirety, finding that the proposed amendments were substantial, would unduly broaden the scope of the hearing, and would prejudice the respondents due to the short time available to respond.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, alleged discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation by their apartment building's superintendent and property management.

The Tribunal found that the superintendent repeatedly directed homophobic slurs at the applicants, creating a poisoned environment.

The corporate respondents were found vicariously liable for the superintendent's conduct and directly liable for failing to investigate the applicants' formal complaint.

The applications against the personal respondent were dismissed.

The corporate respondents were ordered to pay $7,500 to each applicant for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a human rights policy and training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of ethnic origin and creed, arising from the termination of a trailer park lease.

The respondents requested to defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a parallel civil action in Small Claims Court alleging breach of contract and wrongful eviction.

The Tribunal found that the close relationship between the facts and issues in the two proceedings strongly favoured deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after sustaining workplace injuries and filing WSIB claims.

The applicant subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that there was significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings, including the level of disability and benefits entitlement.

To avoid multiple concurrent proceedings and the risk of conflicting findings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the WSIAT process.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the determination of the applicant's claim to the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal noted that deferral is a discretionary measure to prevent concurrent legal processes dealing with the same issues.

However, because neither party provided substantive submissions on the deferral request, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The request was denied, with the Tribunal noting that any relevant findings from the ESA claim could be considered later.

The applicant, a non-unionized member of the Ontario Public Service, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the application pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Tribunal found that despite the applicant's arguments regarding differing timeframes and the arbitrator's jurisdiction, there was significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination in employment and breach of Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant argued the Tribunal refused to consider allegations related to 2009 Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant presented no new facts, evidence, or other basis under Rule 25.5 to justify reconsideration, and merely reiterated arguments already addressed.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The criminal proceeding concluded with the withdrawal of charges and the personal respondent entering into a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

As the issues were no longer before the courts and the respondents did not oppose, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled for mediation.

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

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

Despite updating his mailing address, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions by the specified deadlines.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her workplace injuries.

The respondents requested early dismissal or deferral because the applicant had a concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim regarding the same injuries, which was currently under appeal.

The Tribunal found significant factual overlap between the two proceedings and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the subject-matter was the same as a 1994 complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that while the current allegations shared a broad theme of workplace racism, they related to events that occurred after the Commission disposed of the original complaint in 1997.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was permitted to proceed.