HRTO 2011

The corporate respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the personal respondent's conduct was central to the matter.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was capable of remedying any human rights violations and that there was no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, several individual respondents, and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sexual solicitation.

Following the applicant's evidence, the respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union in its entirety, finding no evidence of differential treatment or reprisal.

The Tribunal also dismissed several allegations against the employer and individual respondents, including allegations of sexual assault and failure to investigate sexual solicitation.

However, the Tribunal allowed allegations regarding discriminatory comments based on Italian heritage and related reprisal to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a McDonald's employee allegedly made a passing comment about her pregnancy during a dispute over a drive-thru order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that a passing comment referring to pregnancy, without more, does not constitute discrimination or harassment under the Code.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to comply with minutes of settlement regarding his relocation.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested to add new allegations of harassment and retaliation to the existing application.

The Tribunal denied the request, ruling that an Application for Contravention of Settlement cannot be converted into a new application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and that the new allegations must be the subject of a separate application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that the application may be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply to the respondent's version of events, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file a Reply within the specified time.

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

The complainant, a female real estate agent, alleged she was subjected to a poisoned work environment and terminated on the basis of sex and gender.

She experienced derogatory name-calling, exclusion, and a persistent false sexual rumour involving her manager.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to reasonably investigate or address her complaints, allowing the poisoned environment to flourish.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's gender was a factor in the adverse treatment and that the discriminatory environment contributed to her termination.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Claims for lost income and personal liability against individual respondents were dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, place of origin, and disability.

He claimed he experienced harassment, was denied leave, received false performance assessments, was not properly accommodated upon returning from medical leave, and was ultimately terminated because of his age and disability.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of harassment or discriminatory performance assessments.

The Tribunal also found that the employer reasonably accommodated the complainant upon his return to work by offering a temporary assignment that met his needs.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination was part of a legitimate workforce reduction based on seniority, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, colour, sex, and reprisal.

The applicant had also filed concurrent grievances through her union regarding the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance process.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application in accordance with its normal practice, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, marital status, race, and creed against the Family Responsibility Office, his former spouse, and her lawyer, stemming from the enforcement of a child support order.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the enforcement of a court order is not a 'service' under the Code, the Code does not cover personal relationships between spouses, and the Code does not cover the relationship between a party and opposing counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, ethnic origin, sexual solicitation or advances, and reprisal by his condominium corporation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of sexual solicitation and reprisal, finding no evidence to support them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding alleged racial slurs and a 'black list' used by the condominium board chairman.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

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

The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

After cancelling a scheduled mediation, the applicant indicated an intention to withdraw the application but failed to return the required forms or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application against the respondents.

The withdrawal was requested pursuant to Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Award dated March 23, 2011.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant reached a settlement with SEIU Local 1 and several individual respondents, leading to the withdrawal of the application against them.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an updated summary of allegations against the remaining respondents, including the College of Nurses of Ontario, within 28 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to the Tribunal's subsequent correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued there were new facts, errors in the decision, and that a union meeting constituted the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found no new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier and held that a union's decision not to pursue a grievance is not an incident of discrimination under the Code.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.