HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and his union.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union because the applicant made no allegations against it on the basis of a protected ground.

Noting that the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the application was timely or how the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant sought to add two individual employees as respondents and to amend her application to include further allegations of reprisal, including termination.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the individual respondents because the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for their conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding a factual and thematic connection between the original allegations regarding the use of advent calendars and the subsequent reprisal allegations.

The applicant requested the re-activation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of a related Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The ESA proceeding concluded in the applicant's favour regarding unpaid overtime, termination pay, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding did not address the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on disability and marital status.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that it proceed to a hearing.

The applicant requested the reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance procedure.

The applicant argued that the grievance procedure would not necessarily address the human rights issues raised.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that an arbitrator had been appointed for the grievance and would be in the best position to address the complex workplace allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The applicant initially indicated it might be appropriate to defer the application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal invited submissions on deferral.

The respondent opposed deferral because the WSIB had issued a final, unappealed decision regarding whether the injury was work-related.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the WSIB decision was final and did not address the human rights issues raised in the application, making it fair and just to proceed.

The respondent objected to the timeliness of several allegations in the applicant's human rights application concerning events between 2001 and November 2010.

The applicant conceded that the allegations were untimely for the purpose of seeking monetary remedies, but argued they should be admitted as background evidence to show a pattern of harassment.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to order the respondent to formally respond to the untimely allegations at this stage, leaving the determination of their relevance and admissibility as background evidence to the hearing Vice-chair.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and a failure to investigate by her employer and supervisors.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the Code grounds, relying on evidence of similar complaints from other female employees.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employer failed to recall him to work since 2006.

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

The Tribunal found that the limitation period began in 2006 and the application was filed approximately three years late.

Finding no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith, and noting the applicant had already filed previous applications regarding the same subject-matter, the Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely and an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his employer and union failed to appropriately address his complaints of workplace harassment.

The applicant conceded that the harassment itself was not based on a Code ground, but argued the Code was engaged because the harassment caused him to develop a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application following a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the Code is not engaged merely because a disability arises from non-Code-related workplace interactions.

The applicants filed identical applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against the same respondents.

The Tribunal applied the factors for consolidation and ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal also confirmed the parties' agreement to remove the personal respondent from the applications.

The applicant, a probationary nurse, alleged that her employment was terminated on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

The employer maintained she was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism.

The Tribunal found that the employer had no knowledge of the applicant's alleged disability (dysmenorrhoea) or that her absences were related to a workplace injury or illness contracted at the hospital.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was not discriminatory and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing, claiming he had a job interview and had not received the Tribunal's correspondence offering alternative dates.

Despite the applicant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules regarding communication, the adjudicator granted the adjournment to ensure fairness, noting the applicant's claim that he did not receive the scheduling emails.

The adjudicator also admonished the applicant for his unacceptable behaviour during the teleconference and directed that future scheduling communications be conducted by mail.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The deadline for the production of documents under Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure was extended to January 27, 2012.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application, arguing the decision conflicted with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue the evidence and did not establish any conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice requesting an update on the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent landlord denied her and her son accommodation on the basis of family status and disability (ADHD).

The applicant claimed the respondent refused to let her view a townhouse at an alternate time and made a derogatory comment about her son's disability during the viewing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant was not considered as a tenant due to her own conduct during the visit, not for discriminatory reasons.

The respondents requested an order directing the applicant to consent to the disclosure of her medical and insurance records before filing their Response to her human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents did not require the documents to file a Response and that the request was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to vary the remedies sought and include an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents consented to the amendment on the condition that they have the opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the respondents may file a response to the new allegations.

The applicants filed human rights applications against Xerox and Manpower.

Manpower requested early dismissal, arguing that the issues were governed by federal human rights law because the applicants performed work integral to CIBC, a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the ordinary businesses of Xerox and Manpower are document management and staffing, respectively, which are presumptively provincial matters.

The Tribunal concluded that regulating the human rights of employees providing storage, faxing, and scanning services to CIBC does not impair the core of the federal power to regulate banking.

The Tribunal determined it has jurisdiction over the applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a workplace injury and subsequent dismissal.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the original Application to reorganize the narrative, clarify allegations, detail remedial claims, and provide information on concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendments did not raise new allegations distinct from the original narrative, the respondent was aware of the core allegations from the outset, and the remedial details would assist the parties and the Tribunal.