HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding a Return to Work Specialist's assessment that certain assistive devices were not medically required.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that even if the WSIB's assessment was wrong or unfair, there was no evidence to suggest the applicant was treated unequally because of a disability.

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

During the hearing, after presenting his evidence, the Tribunal questioned whether a prima facie case had been established.

The applicant conceded there was no reasonable prospect of success and requested to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to finally dispose of the matter.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include allegations that his recent termination was a reprisal for filing the application.

The respondents opposed the amendment, noting the applicant had filed grievances regarding the termination and requested the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it was late, would substantially broaden the scope of the hearing, and would prejudice the respondents.

The Tribunal directed that the issue of deferral pending the outcome of the grievances would be dealt with as a preliminary matter at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, who has a mental disability, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, and reprisal.

She alleged that the respondents improperly administered a controlled substance to her while she was an outpatient, and that the respondents' counsel breached a previous Tribunal sealing order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove her Code rights were violated.

The Tribunal also declined the respondents' request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, though it cautioned her regarding future filings.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, association with a person identified by a Code ground, and reprisal, claiming he was not interviewed for three positions at the respondent college.

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

The Tribunal found that historical allegations were outside its jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code.

For the recent job applications, the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the failure to obtain an interview to a protected ground or reprisal, relying only on his own assertions.

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

The applicant, who lives with HIV and Hepatitis C, alleged that the respondent orthopaedic surgeon discriminated against her on the basis of disability during a consultation for knee replacement surgery.

She claimed the respondent failed to physically examine her, inappropriately questioned her about her HIV status, and told her she was too young for surgery and would end up in a wheelchair.

The Tribunal found that the respondent likely did conduct a physical examination, that his questions about her HIV status were medically relevant to assessing surgical risks, and that his decision not to recommend surgery was based on her mild arthritis rather than her disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application on Monday, February 28, 2011, alleging the last discriminatory event occurred on February 26, 2010.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted that because February 26, 2011 fell on a Saturday, the time limit was extended to the next business day pursuant to section 89(2) of the Legislation Act, 2006.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed out of time, and directed that the application be processed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that the actions of an Assessment Officer in a judicial proceeding are not 'services' under the Code.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request because it was filed late without a compelling reason, and the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without its participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, whose brother died while working as a migrant agricultural worker, brought a human rights application alleging that the Coroners Act discriminates by not mandating inquests for agricultural worker fatalities.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of data regarding participant fatalities and medical repatriations from third parties FARMS and HRSDC.

The Tribunal ordered the third parties to produce the requested data from 1978 to the present, noting that the respondent did not oppose the production and the third parties either did not oppose or cited privacy concerns that an order would resolve.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, which required the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure within one week.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he was not hired for a cleaner position.

He claimed that during his second interview, he was asked an abstract question ('Is the glass half empty or half full?') which he could not answer due to his learning disability affecting his memory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between his disability and his inability to answer the question, and therefore declined to dismiss the application, directing the respondent to file a Response.

The respondent school board requested the early dismissal of an application alleging breach of settlement, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed a complete application and that the allegations of failing to allow full parental engagement fell within the limitation period.

The respondent's request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's arguments that he was discriminated against because other organizations offered direct deposit, or because the WSIB offered it to its employees and grandfathered benefit recipients.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed on the issue of whether the failure to provide direct deposit amounted to constructive discrimination by denying the applicant equal access to benefits due to his mobility limitations.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, Dorothy Bower, from the application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Applying the Persaud framework, the Tribunal found that while there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's deemed liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement, the applicant's Reply indicated that the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue in the proceeding.

The request to remove the individual respondent was therefore dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her two adult sons, alleging discrimination by the respondents in the administration of their Ontario Works benefits.

The respondents had terminated the sons' benefits for failure to provide required income information.

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

Finding no nexus between the respondents' decisions to terminate benefits and any of the alleged protected grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing delays in a related court matter and counsel's busy schedule.

The request was made after the deadline to file statements of evidence had passed.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it was a deliberate delay tactic.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the respondent's failure to comply with the Tribunal's order and the late timing of the request.

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 respond.

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

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

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

As all other parties consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the order and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination on the basis of disability filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of various documents from the respondent employer.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that most of the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, specifically the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's disability by refusing to assign her day and evening shifts.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the arguably relevant documents.