HRTO 2011

The respondent recruitment company, located in California, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applications against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued it operated entirely outside Ontario and made all decisions outside the province.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it had jurisdiction because the telephone interviews related to an employment opportunity based in Ontario, the applicants were in Ontario, and any ultimate decisions regarding their employment were implemented in Ontario.

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

The corporate respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The applicant sought to continue the application against the personal respondents only.

The Tribunal held that because the allegations against the personal respondents related solely to their roles as supervisory employees of the corporate respondent, proceeding against them would constitute a proceeding in respect of the bankrupt entity's business.

As no leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver had been obtained, the application was dismissed pursuant to the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely restated arguments previously advanced and failed to present new facts, evidence, or any other basis that met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, a moving and delivery business.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated business.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and received written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent operates an inter-provincial and international moving business, placing it under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over federally regulated employers, the application was dismissed.

The individual respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a grievance settlement and a complaint to the Ontario College of Teachers had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance dealt with disciplinary measures rather than human rights issues, and the applicant was not a party to it.

Furthermore, the College of Teachers did not make findings on whether the respondent's comments were discriminatory within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by failing to install his proposed electronic bar invention to prevent subway platform falls.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a link between the alleged lack of safety features and his age or disability, and that the Code does not protect against hypothetical violations.

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

Following a decision on the merits finding that the complainant was discriminated against by police officers during fingerprinting and by contacting his employer, the Tribunal issued a supplementary decision on liability.

The Tribunal found the Toronto Police Services Board vicariously liable for the discriminatory actions of the officers under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to make any finding of liability against the individual officers named.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay an agreed-upon lump sum.

The respondent admitted non-payment but argued it was relieved of its obligation because the applicant had breached the settlement's confidentiality provision by discussing the terms with a former co-worker.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility of the respondent's key witness and found his evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

Concluding that the respondent failed to prove a breach of confidentiality by the applicant, the Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the settlement and ordered it to pay the agreed lump sum with pre-judgment interest.

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

After failing to appear for a scheduled mediation and failing to respond to the Registrar's subsequent correspondence regarding her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged she was harassed and subsequently terminated by her employer due to her disability after taking medically authorized leaves of absence.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the harassment allegations, noting the employer's conduct during her leave was not vexatious.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the employer's decision to terminate the applicant was based, in part, on the perception that her medical absences would recur and negatively impact store operations.

The Tribunal awarded $6,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with eight weeks of lost wages.

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

Despite agreeing to mediation, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for mediation dates.

The Registrar subsequently directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal of his intentions, warning that failure to respond within 10 days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing against an organizational and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that the response received lacked clarity regarding the organizational respondent's ownership and management of the property.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the individual respondent failed to file a complete response in violation of Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondent to file a complete response within 5 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the matter proceeding without his participation.

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

The original application, alleging reprisal and discrimination by association, was filed 64 months after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misconstrued her allegations and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Human Rights Code and Tribunal Rules.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued that the summary hearing process was unfair, that the Tribunal ignored relevant case law, and that the decision conflicted with privacy legislation.

The Tribunal found that the summary hearing process was consistent with its Rules of Procedure and that the applicant had the opportunity to present her evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish any compelling or extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration and denied the request.

The applicant requested a change of venue from Toronto to Sudbury and a shortened hearing schedule as an accommodation for her disabilities.

The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence indicating that travel and prolonged activity would exacerbate her condition and interfere with her rehabilitation.

The Tribunal granted the request, changing the venue to Sudbury and limiting the hearing to two hours, with evidence to be provided primarily through written statements and cross-examination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because she had previously filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same subject matter.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged new facts were available prior to the original decision and that the applicant failed to establish any conflict with jurisprudence or public importance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by her landlord, Ottawa Community Housing.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the last incident involving the respondent occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide credible medical evidence that her disability prevented her from filing the application in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide a detailed written explanation and medical confirmation for his absence.

The applicant submitted a letter citing medical illness and a fear of criminal harassment charges, but failed to provide the required medical confirmation or detailed explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to comply with its directions and failure to provide an adequate explanation for his absence.

The respondent filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to order the applicant to consent to the release of his medical file prior to the respondent filing its Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision was not a 'final' decision under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure because it did not dispose of any central issues in the application.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response within 14 days, after which it could make further requests for medical information if necessary.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination and reprisal, the applicant requested an order for the production of her historical employee information sheets, medical file, and personal employee file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the requested documents to the specific positions and disciplinary events at issue.