HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being laid off and repeatedly passed over for promotions in favour of younger candidates.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss several allegations, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over positions located in California and that earlier incidents were out of time.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the California positions because the hiring process occurred in Toronto, establishing a sufficient connection to Ontario.

Regarding delay, the Tribunal found that most of the earlier job competitions constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and were therefore timely.

However, one discrete incident regarding the creation of a position for a displaced manager was struck from the application as it was not part of the series and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being laid off upon his return from an 18-month medical leave.

The employer argued the layoff was part of a genuine company-wide downsizing due to the loss of major clients.

The Tribunal found no direct discrimination, as the layoff was justified by economic circumstances.

While the employer's need for 'continuity' adversely affected the applicant due to his lengthy absence, the Tribunal held that accommodating him through a re-orientation period or displacing other employees would have caused undue hardship given the severe business downturn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with a union grievance.

After the respondent provided evidence that the grievance had been settled and requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond.

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

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

The respondents raised several preliminary issues regarding an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a one-day in-person hearing to hear arguments on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or 34(11) of the Code, deferred pending civil proceedings, or dismissed against the Association for untimeliness or failure to raise a social area.

The Tribunal also directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director to allow them an opportunity to intervene.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding the applicant's request to amend the application and the respondents' request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with under the Police Services Act.

Noting the significance of the s. 45.1 issue in the context of the Police Services Act, the Tribunal directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director to allow them or other organizations to seek intervener status.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding issues that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant and union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral favours the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant, who has strabismus, was denied the opportunity to continue in the application process for a police constable position because he failed to meet the stereo acuity vision standard.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the standard was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondents failed to establish it as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The evidence did not demonstrate that the standard was reasonably necessary to ensure the safe performance of police driving duties.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Results, and directed the respondents to cease relying on the standard.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services or facilities.

He subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to include the social area of employment, stating he was a volunteer for the respondent soccer club.

The respondents did not file a Response to the Request despite being granted extensions of time.

The Tribunal granted the Request, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

The applicants, who are elderly and disabled, filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent County discriminated against them and engaged in reprisals by failing to enforce by-laws against a housing developer.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing in writing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide any evidence linking the County's alleged failure to enforce its by-laws to the applicants' age, disability, or any assertion of their human rights.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights applications against the respondents, who were constructing homes in their neighbourhood.

The applicants alleged discrimination and reprisal based on age and disability, citing construction nuisances and elder abuse.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicants did not meet the criteria under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the basis of judicial immunity.

She also requested an oral hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for an oral hearing, noting that matters protected by judicial immunity are outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her position and had not demonstrated that the interim decision conflicted with established case law or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicant's human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously filed grievances regarding the same subject matter, which were deferred on consent.

After an arbitrator was appointed and mediation occurred, the applicant withdrew her grievances and reactivated her Tribunal application.

The respondent argued this constituted forum shopping.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's decision to proceed before the Tribunal instead of arbitration was not, on its face, an abuse of process.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The terms of employment were governed by a collective agreement, and the union had filed a grievance regarding the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

Both parties consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against one of the respondents.

Having provided proof that the criminal proceedings were concluded, the respondents consented to the reactivation.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and placed in the queue for scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and the employer's law firm.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to address issues of delay, failure to identify specific acts of discrimination, and jurisdiction over the law firm.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for delay or failure to identify specific acts of discrimination against the employer.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the law firm, finding that a lawyer acting for an opposing party does not provide a service to the applicant within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide any submissions bearing on the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 25.5, nor did she point to any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure conflicting with the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time to comply with a previous Case Assessment Direction regarding statements of fact and clarifying its position on undue hardship.

The applicants consented to the extension regarding the statements of fact but opposed the extension regarding the undue hardship position.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline for both matters.

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

A concurrent grievance arbitration concerning the same dismissal was scheduled.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent agreed to the deferral, while the applicant's union noted the employer was not allowing human rights submissions in the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

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

Following an earlier interim decision declining to defer the matter, the respondent was directed to file a response but failed to do so.

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

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a request to proceed with her previously deferred human rights application under Rule 14.3.

The respondent agreed with the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the Registrar to schedule a mediation session, as both parties indicated an interest in mediation.