HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

The applicant also filed a concurrent grievance through his union alleging unjust dismissal and harassment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance.

Despite the applicant's opposition and concerns regarding his union's representation, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the factual overlap and the scheduled mediation and arbitration dates for the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and reprisal in employment against a physician and the clinic.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent complaint filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the College complaint was only at the investigation stage, did not address the reprisal allegations, and could not provide remedies to the applicant.

The applicant, a lawyer employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to the applicant's time at the Family Responsibility Office were out of time and the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had retained counsel and identified the alleged contraventions well before the deadline.

However, allegations regarding communications about a new secondment in September and October 2010 were within the one-year limitation period and were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her vocational association (ALOC), its former president, and its legal counsel (SGM), alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last incidents involving the former president and legal counsel.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application against those two respondents.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against ALOC solely regarding its ongoing communications with the employer and its continued delay in proceeding with the applicant's grievance, as these arguably occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued his failure to attend was due to an acute viral illness and a belief that he would be arrested if he participated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided an adequate explanation for his failure to participate, even by telephone, and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent's long-term disability policy discriminated against her on the basis of disability due to a pre-existing condition exclusion.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, arguing lack of jurisdiction and a statutory exemption under section 22 of the Code.

The applicant requested to amend the application to add the social area of employment.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss, finding it premature to evaluate the substantive defences at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request to amend to the hearing on the merits, as it required an assessment of facts and evidence regarding the insurance policy and employment relationship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, claiming he was terminated while on probation following altercations with co-workers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to lack specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and record of offences against Bombardier Inc. and CN Rail.

The applicant's union, Teamster Canada Rail Conference, requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

CN Rail requested the application be dismissed against it, arguing it is a federally regulated enterprise outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant, a mature university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, creed, race, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, against the university and several staff members.

The allegations stemmed from academic disputes, timetable issues, and a subsequent campus ban following the applicant's disruptive behaviour.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the respondents' conduct to any prohibited ground or establish an intention to reprise.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending an ongoing grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant argued that the union was failing to advance her grievances properly and that the process was bogged down.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration was actively proceeding, having already heard 30 days of evidence on the same issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to re-activate, concluding that doing so would be duplicative, risk inconsistent findings, and waste resources.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of an attendance management program policy document and an order compelling the respondent to make two individuals available for cross-examination.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the policy document, despite the respondent's relevance objections, but declined to compel the witnesses' attendance, finding no authority in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to compel a party to call a specific witness.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The individual respondent filed a Response objecting to the Tribunal's delay in sending the Application and requested dismissal, but did not otherwise respond.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing both respondents to file a Response by May 31, 2011, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before terminating the hearing.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to non-attendance.

The applicant, a janitor with a mental health disability, sought an interim remedy to allow him to listen to his MP3 player at work, which he claimed mitigated his symptoms.

The respondent had banned the device for safety reasons.

The Tribunal granted the interim remedy, finding the applicant had an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured him, and the remedy was just and appropriate, provided he only used the device in non-hazardous areas.

The respondent requested an order to amend its Response to address the merits of the human rights application, after its initial request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing the respondent's request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the United Steelworkers, Local 8694, requested to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene in accordance with its standard practice for unionized applicants, with the scope of participation to be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to proceed with his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the resolution of a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The applicant indicated that the grievance had been withdrawn prior to a hearing on its merits.

As the respondent made no submissions, the Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the parties to respond to outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, naming her former store area manager as the sole personal respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondent and substitute the corporate employer.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the allegations pertained to the personal respondent acting in the course of her employment, the corporate employer was a proper substitute potentially liable for the alleged violations, and there was no compelling reason to continue against the personal respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, along with a request for an interim remedy seeking reinstatement and compensation.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the remedy or that it was necessary to facilitate a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's one-year delay in filing the application weighed strongly against granting interim reinstatement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the investigation process of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of parallel disciplinary proceedings before the Law Society.

Finding that the disciplinary proceedings raised overlapping facts and issues, and that the Hearing Panel had already ruled on some of the human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application in the interests of the orderly administration of justice.