HRTO 2011

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (mental illness) after the co-op implemented a 'no cash' policy for housing charges.

The applicant claimed her disability required her to pay debts in cash to manage stress and excessive spending.

The Tribunal found that while the policy had an adverse impact, the co-op provided reasonable accommodation by allowing cash payments directly at the co-op's bank, which was close to the applicant's home and did not cause significant additional inconvenience.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former tenant, alleged that her landlord and property manager discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of race, creed, gender, and receipt of public assistance.

She claimed they repeatedly entered her unit, stole small items, tampered with her belongings, and deliberately cut a pipe to flood her apartment.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were highly improbable, unsupported by independent evidence, and lacked any reasonable prospect of being proven on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by a collection agency pursuing him for credit card debt because he had assets.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application did not allege discrimination based on a Code-protected ground.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not relate to a Code-protected ground and fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her lower back injury and ultimately terminating her employment.

The Tribunal found that the employer fully cooperated with the WSIB to develop and implement return-to-work plans, providing modified duties, scheduling accommodations, and a chair.

The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary actions taken against the applicant, including a suspension, were based on a good faith belief of inadequate performance and insubordination, not her disability.

Furthermore, the applicant was not terminated but remained an employee on medical leave.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during training as a ground service agent at Pearson International Airport.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was both abandoned and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because aeronautics and related ground services fall under federal jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application did not appear to identify any specific acts of discrimination, and directed the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The union and the employer had settled the grievances and the union withdrew them, but the applicant refused to sign the settlement agreement that would have disposed of her human rights application.

The Tribunal held that, absent the applicant's consent to the settlement, the withdrawal of the grievances by the union did not preclude her from proceeding with her application.

The request to re-activate the application was granted.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her pre-2009 allegations of discrimination against the university for delay.

The applicant argued that the earlier events were necessary to show a continuous pattern of discrimination culminating in a 2009 incident with campus police.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue matters already decided and had not established any new facts, conflict with jurisprudence, or other grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon her termination.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and did not explicitly mention human rights claims.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion of the will amounting to duress and held that the broad language of the release barred the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an ongoing WSIB appeal dealt with the same substance, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, as the WSIB appeal was still pending and had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings due to the significant overlap in facts and issues.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The reconsideration request was filed more than four months after the original decision, well beyond the 30-day time limit under Rule 26.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was untimely and that the applicant failed to establish any new facts, evidence, or other threshold criteria to justify reconsideration.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application for failure to state a prima facie case and failure to disclose documents.

The self-represented applicant explained she misunderstood her production obligations, believing her former counsel or the respondents' insurer had provided the medical documents.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation and declined to dismiss the application for non-compliance, instead ordering the applicant to produce the required documents by a specified date.

The motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case was deferred as premature until the documents were produced.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the respondent's three-day delay in mailing settlement monies was a de minimis breach of settlement not warranting a remedy.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in a hiring process for an airport screening officer position with the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be federally regulated.

The applicant argued that the respondent was not on a list of federal employers he obtained.

The Tribunal found that pre-boarding screening of passengers and baggage is functionally integrated into air transportation, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to an interim decision directing her to advise whether she intended to continue her application.

The corporate respondent had previously initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings and the sale of substantially all its assets.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal held a case management conference call to address the lead case designation in a group of applications challenging minor hockey residency rules.

The family of the previously designated lead applicant, CH.K., requested to withdraw from that role due to family medical matters.

Over the respondents' objections regarding prejudice, the Tribunal allowed the change and designated CO.K. as the new lead case, finding minimal prejudice since no hearing dates had been set and no documents exchanged.

The applicant alleged that the respondent appraiser discriminated against him in the provision of services by undervaluing his home due to its proximity to the Douglas Creek Estates First Nations land dispute.

The applicant argued that the appraiser's use of the term 'native occupation' and his selection of comparators demonstrated an anti-native bias that negatively affected the appraisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the appraiser intentionally undervalued the property or that considering the unresolved land dispute as a factor in the neighbourhood's property values was discriminatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a workplace grievance-arbitration process based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about the remedies available at arbitration and potential delays.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that delay is not a sufficient reason to proceed with concurrent applications.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original application alleged discrimination by a Vice-chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board during an adjudicative proceeding, which was dismissed based on the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant merely restated her previous arguments and presented no new basis to reconsider the decision.