HRTO 2011

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been deferred pending a union grievance, and was dismissed when the Tribunal did not receive a requested status update.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had prepared the update but, due to an inadvertent error by union staff, it was faxed to the respondents but not the Tribunal.

Finding no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration and ordered the application to remain deferred.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the specified time.

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

The corporate respondent, which had no employees or assets and whose owner was bankrupt, renewed its request to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The respondent's counsel argued that he could not obtain instructions because there was no one from the corporation to instruct him, and the insurer could only give instructions regarding settlement, not defence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the lack of an instructing party was not a new circumstance and adjourning the hearing would not resolve the issue.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had ample time to seek instructions from the insurer.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto and Alliance Youth Services Inc. Following a finding of liability in a bifurcated hearing, the parties engaged in mediation-adjudication to determine the appropriate remedy.

The parties agreed to a consent order, which included an undisclosed sum for general damages, the development and implementation of human rights policies and training by the respondents, and a review of an outstanding payment claim.

The Tribunal issued the consent order and remained seized of implementation issues for 12 months.

The applicant, who suffered from coronary artery disease, alleged that he experienced harassment in employment because of his disability during a warehouse consolidation process.

He claimed that various management representatives made inappropriate comments, coerced him regarding long-term disability benefits, and threatened to cut off his sick leave when he failed to provide comprehensive medical consent.

The Tribunal found that while one manager's comment about doctors writing whatever employees want was unfortunate and vexatious, it was an isolated incident that did not amount to a course of conduct required for harassment.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding the employer's actions in requesting medical information and managing the accommodation process were reasonable and not discriminatory.

The applicant, a condominium resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, and age, as well as reprisal.

The allegations centered on an email from a condominium board member addressing her as 'Miss', which she claimed harmed her reputation by suggesting an improper relationship.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the use of a common salutation does not constitute discrimination under the Code, and there was no evidence of reprisal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application and amend the monetary relief sought.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the personal respondent.

Having received proof that the criminal proceedings were completed, the Tribunal re-activated the application.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her damages claim for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect from $10,000 to $25,000, noting it was early in the process and there were no new allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex regarding a denial of promotion and termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

Both the applicant and the employer respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent university.

The applicant requested to write an exam on an alternative date for convenience related to her work schedule, without prior instructor approval.

The respondent denied the request, citing its examination policy requiring students to write at the same time to maintain academic integrity, but offered to keep its test centre open late on the scheduled exam day to accommodate her.

The applicant withdrew from the course and alleged a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no Code-related reason for needing to write on the alternative date, and the respondent's refusal and subsequent efforts to arrange a time on the scheduled day did not constitute discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied start-up benefits for housing.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had appealed the denial to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which was currently considering the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the SBT had the authority to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and there was a clear overlap in facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the SBT appeal.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to reply to the respondents' arguments that the application was premature and to explain why the alleged changes constituted discrimination.

The applicant failed to make the directed submissions within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and WSIAT regarding decisions made about his statutory benefits.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it does not have jurisdiction to review the content, reasons, and results of decisions made by other statutory tribunals, as these do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when his employer failed to accommodate his work-related injury and terminated his employment.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the Application pending the conclusion of WSIB proceedings.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his objection to a WSIB decision that found he was terminated for reasons unrelated to his injury.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the Application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding dealt with substantially the same factual and legal issues and constituted a final decision.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and pregnancy.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the outcome of a reconsideration of an Ontario Ministry of Labour Order under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the ESA proceeding was virtually identical to the human rights application and that similar remedies were available.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability and age following a workplace accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding that the WSIB decision only addressed re-employment obligations under its own policies and did not consider the Code issues of disability and age discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance would not address the substance of the application and did not include all allegations.

The respondents supported deferral to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, finding it the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the overlap in facts and the advanced stage of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, the Ministry of Children & Youth Services, and 16 personal respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant subsequently requested to add his union, OPSEU, as a respondent, alleging it failed to facilitate accommodation and address a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal granted the request to add OPSEU, finding allegations that could support a Code violation.

The Tribunal also removed all 16 personal respondents, noting the corporate respondents could be held vicariously liable and had the ability to remedy any proven infringements.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment regarding a job application with the New Democratic Party caucus services for the Parliament of Canada.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions seeking submissions on jurisdiction.

Finding that the respondent is a federal organization within the federal parliamentary service, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a security guard.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed or deferred due to a pending civil action.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss or Defer.

The applicant confirmed there were no ongoing court proceedings regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal found no grounds to dismiss or defer the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached the minutes of settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the respondent to create a plain language information sheet outlining restrictions for youths applying for social assistance and to provide a copy to the applicant.

The applicant acknowledged receiving the document but objected to the substance of the respondent's policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the settlement and was not required to seek the applicant's approval regarding the policy's substance.