HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, which appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that he mailed the application via priority post within the time limit and was promised delivery within five days.

The Tribunal found that a plain and obvious lack of jurisdiction was not established at this stage, as the delay may have been caused by factors beyond the applicant's control, and directed that the application be processed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application against her union and its representatives.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence that met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules for Transitional Applications.

The applicant's dissatisfaction with her union's handling of her grievance and her belief that she was discriminated against were not proper bases for reconsideration.

The request was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He alleged the respondent's programs targeting heterosexism and sexual minorities discriminated against heterosexuals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasonable prospect of success, as education about heterosexism is not discriminatory and programs targeting disadvantaged groups are protected as special programs under s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her daughter against the Ontario Nurses' Association, alleging discrimination and reprisal in its representation of her daughter following a termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address delay and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events prior to June 2009 were out of time, as the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The only timely allegation, regarding the union's refusal to assist in obtaining an employee health file, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the refusal to a prohibited ground or establishing an intent to retaliate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being placed on a medical leave of absence and denied accommodation.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than one year after his termination.

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

The applicant argued he was unaware of his rights under the Code and was awaiting the outcome of a union grievance.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of one's rights and awaiting the outcome of other processes do not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's findings might lead to the dismissal of her civil claim, leaving her without a remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the potential impact on the civil claim did not constitute grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as section 34(11) is a strict jurisdictional bar.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her dismissal.

The respondents argued the application was untimely.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to trauma and depression, providing medical notes.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant had pursued a WSIB claim during the same period and the medical evidence did not establish an inability to file the application on time.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination, claiming the delay was due to depression.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to file, and failed to explain how he was able to pursue other legal claims, obtain a professional designation, and work during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely because the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights complaint, arguing it was out of time, outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union engaged in reverse discrimination by failing to properly represent her in a grievance arbitration because she is a white woman.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that some allegations fell within the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction with the Ontario Labour Relations Board over discriminatory representation claims, and the application could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success at this preliminary stage.

The respondent employer sought to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal insurance appeal process conducted by its disability management service provider had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the internal insurance appeal process was not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1, as it lacked the guarantees of procedural fairness and adjudicative independence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it were a proceeding, it did not deal with the substance of the human rights application regarding the failure to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs.

The personal respondent brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment and sexual solicitation by the personal respondent, her supervisor.

The personal respondent argued that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in criminal proceedings, where he pleaded guilty to simple assault and received an absolute discharge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the criminal proceedings did not address the human rights issues of sexual harassment and solicitation, and therefore the substance of the application was not appropriately dealt with.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her long-term disability benefits were terminated by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the denial of benefits, finding no link between the denial and the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations that a rehabilitation worker made harassing and demeaning comments related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal considered two requests for reconsideration of a previous decision finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainant.

The complainant sought to correct a typographical error in the respondent's name, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent, through his daughter acting as power of attorney, sought reconsideration on the basis that his severe mental disability (paranoid schizophrenia) rendered him incapable of participating in the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's fundamental right to be heard outweighed the public interest in finality, extended the time limit for the request, and ordered the complaint to be heard de novo.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his son's education.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) sought intervenor status to protect the interests of its teacher members, who were the subject of the allegations.

The respondents consented to the intervention, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal granted ETFO intervenor status, finding that it had a significant interest in the allegations, could provide a unique perspective, and its participation would not unduly delay the proceeding.

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

A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding its adjudication of her case and the lack of diaper changing facilities at its premises.

The OLRB requested that the application be dismissed based on judicial immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the OLRB's adjudicative actions, finding that judicial immunity shields adjudicators from such claims.

The allegation regarding diaper changing facilities was allowed to continue.

The applicant's request for production of the OLRB file was dismissed as moot and premature.

The applicant, a bus driver, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race in employment against OC Transpo.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that it is a federally regulated inter-provincial transportation business.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that OC Transpo falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction and that the applicant had abandoned the application.

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

One of the named personal respondents, the former Director of Human Resources, filed a request to be removed as a party.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent, as her interactions with the applicant arose out of her corporate duties and there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's deemed liability.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed as a party.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of a grievance arbitration based on some of the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and the union opposed it.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the scope of the human rights application was much broader than the single-issue grievance and that the arbitration would not be heard until at least May 2012.