HRTO 2011

The applicant, an Aboriginal person, was subcontracted to provide Aboriginal relations training alongside a non-Aboriginal trainer.

Following negative evaluations of their first session, the Ministry directed the termination of the applicant's contract but only required coaching for the non-Aboriginal trainer, who also performed poorly.

The Tribunal found the Ministry discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race by subjecting her to heightened scrutiny, disproportionate blame, and a more punitive response.

The subcontractor, Consulting Matrix, was found not liable as it reasonably investigated and attempted to remedy the situation.

The Ministry was ordered to pay $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued that he was unaware of the limitation period and that the employer's failure to respond to his request to return to work constituted a continuing incident.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay and that the employer's non-response was a continuing effect of the original incident, not a new act of discrimination.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, a female dispatcher in the Communications Division of the City of Brockville Fire Department, alleged sex discrimination against her employer and union regarding differences in wages, experience pay, breaks, and scheduling compared to firefighters in other divisions.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the equal wages claim was beyond the scope of the original complaint.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the differences in benefits were based on classification and function, not sex, and dismissed the applications due to insufficient evidence of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant argued that the grievance process was too slow and uncertain.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original deferral decision and that the grievance process had not yet concluded.

La requérante allègue avoir été victime de discrimination fondée sur le handicap par son employeur et que son syndicat a abandonné son grief.

Les intimés demandent le rejet sommaire de la requête, arguant que le grief a été réglé en médiation et que les allégations contre le syndicat ne soulèvent aucune question liée au Code.

Le Tribunal émet des directives pour permettre à la requérante de présenter des observations orales sur ces questions préliminaires avant de statuer sur la demande de rejet.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she was medically unable to attend due to a broken ankle.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's medical report indicated she needed to elevate her ankle above her heart frequently, making attendance difficult.

Despite concerns about the late submission of the medical report and the applicant's lack of communication with her representative, the Tribunal granted the adjournment, making the next hearing date peremptory on the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination against her union and its counsel.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it duplicated a previously dismissed application and was barred by res judicata.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no reasonable basis to link the respondents' conduct in representing her to the ground of age.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing, citing a suspended driver's license and a resulting depressive episode that prevented his attendance and participation.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the availability of alternative transportation and the lack of medical documentation supporting the applicant's claims.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, ordering that the hearing proceed as scheduled unless the applicant provides medical documentation substantiating his inability to travel as a passenger and participate in the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

She argued that her failure to respond to Tribunal directions was due to a more urgent court matter and health issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that she provided no medical evidence of an inability to communicate and that dealing with other matters does not justify ignoring Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal concluded there were no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

The applicants filed three separate human rights applications against the respondents alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, facilities, and contracts.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three applications due to significant overlap in facts, issues, parties, and witnesses.

Furthermore, noting ongoing criminal proceedings involving the parties that arose from the same facts, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove two individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, as the corporate respondent was capable of remedying any potential Code infringement.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The corporate respondent acknowledged that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment at all material times.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, as the corporate respondent could remedy any human rights violations found.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately 22 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of one's rights and awaiting the outcome of a civil action do not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged that the respondent, an employee, discriminated against him by falsely accusing him of racism.

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

The Tribunal found that an accusation of racism, even if false, does not in and of itself constitute discrimination under the Code, noting that section 8 protects individuals asserting their human rights from reprisal.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel had to travel abroad to tend to an ill mother.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the adjournment, noting that a medical emergency involving a close family member constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging age discrimination, arguing that the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action did not seek remedies for discrimination.

However, given the substantial factual overlap and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding hiring decisions for teaching positions at York University.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for further course and instructor lists, original academic diplomas of another candidate, and application files for all math department hires since 2002, finding them irrelevant to the issue of whether the specific hiring decisions involving the applicant were tainted by discrimination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the university to produce the application materials of the successful candidates for the specific positions the applicant had applied for, as their qualifications were arguably relevant to the discrimination claim.

The applicants, most of whom are Raeliens, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after the respondent pub refused to allow them to host a 'mini-lecture' and asked them to leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate business reasons for refusing to host the widely-publicized event, as it had not consented to the publicity and was concerned about disruption.

However, the Tribunal found that the General Manager's comment that the pub did not want to be associated with their 'cult' constituted discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $100 to each applicant for injury to dignity and to require its managerial staff to complete human rights training.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging his home was undervalued due to discrimination.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator improperly admitted testimony that was not disclosed prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the testimony arose during the applicant's own cross-examination, no underlying documents existed, and the applicant failed to establish any criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, citing incidents from 2005 and his termination in 2009.

The respondents requested to strike the 2005 allegations for delay and to remove the individual respondents.

The applicant requested to add another individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that the 2005 incidents were not part of a series of incidents and the delay was not incurred in good faith, limiting the application to incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents and denied the request to add another, as the corporate respondent could adequately respond to and remedy the alleged conduct.