HRTO 2011

The applicant, a Health Care Aide with physical restrictions, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She was successfully accommodated in an evening shift position but applied for a day shift position that she could not physically perform, hoping it would lead to a transfer to a day shift position she could perform.

The respondent denied the application and assigned the position to a less senior employee.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent had already successfully accommodated the applicant, and the failure to transfer her to a preferred shift, which would require displacing another employee and overriding seniority rights under the Collective Agreement, did not constitute discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following her termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a union grievance concerning the same termination.

The applicant's union also requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and ordered the deferral of the application, finding that the grievance and the application dealt with the same factual and legal subject matter.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age when it decided not to hire him for an Inside Sales Consultant position.

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

The applicant argued he was told he was overqualified and would likely leave after a few months, but acknowledged he could not prove age was a factor.

The Tribunal found no connection between the respondent's perception of overqualification and the applicant's age, concluding the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissing it.

The applicant, a Black high school student, alleged racial discrimination and reprisal against a shopping mall owner after two incidents involving security guards.

In the first incident, the applicant was asked to clean up garbage at a food court table, refused, swore at the guard, and was verbally banned from the mall.

In the second incident, the applicant returned to the mall, was arrested for trespassing, and escorted to the security office.

The Tribunal found that the security guards' actions were motivated by the applicant's behaviour and the enforcement of the trespass ban, not by his race, colour, or ethnic origin.

The application was dismissed.

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

After the applicant failed to respond to a Registrar's direction inquiring about her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a subsequent Interim Decision providing an extension.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation and accepted all allegations in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials before a final determination.

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent daycare discriminated against her on the basis of her association with a person with a disability (her brother).

The applicant claimed she was denied admission to the daycare because of her brother's behavioural issues and disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not offered a space because her father had erroneously recorded her birth year as 2002 instead of 2003, causing her to be passed over when the daycare prioritized younger children.

The applicant was ultimately removed from the waitlist due to negative interactions between her mother and daycare staff.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a witness statement and document list shortly before the scheduled hearing.

In response, the respondents requested an extension of time to file additional documents and add a witness to address the new evidence.

The applicant objected, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request, finding it reasonable given the late notice of the applicant's witness evidence, and noted that any issues of prejudice could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to a reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code after participating in a co-worker's grievance arbitration hearing.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege any facts within the scope of section 8, as there was no evidence that the grievance arbitration related to Code-protected human rights.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.

The applicant challenged several factual findings made by the adjudicator regarding the events surrounding his termination from a courier company and subsequent police involvement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and did not provide any new facts, evidence, or other grounds that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related criminal proceeding against one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that the criminal charges related to an incident forming a substantial part of the application.

The responding parties requested that the applicant be required to present his case first at an upcoming hearing regarding whether the application had been settled.

The Tribunal denied the request, directing the responding parties to lead their evidence first in support of their preliminary objection that a settlement had been reached.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled telephone conference summary hearing, arguing that the respondents failed to produce certain documents as required by a Case Assessment Direction.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, directing that any document production issues be addressed at the outset of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding housing and services, stemming from an arrest for uttering a death threat to her landlord and alleged unfair treatment by her probation officer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last incident and did not appear to allege a Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal avenues was not a good faith reason for the delay and that the allegations against the probation officer did not relate to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the ESA proceeding was virtually identical to the human rights application, involving allegations of reprisal related to pregnancy leave.

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 applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of colour and disability, claiming he was denied a retirement badge and a part-time background investigator position.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference, which the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

Alternatively, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the allegations were based on unsupported assumptions and speculation.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and constructive dismissal.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on identical facts and seeking identical relief.

The Tribunal found that the civil Statement of Claim and the Application were identical in all respects.

As section 34(11) creates a mandatory bar against duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the Application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.