HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages allegation under section 45.1 of the Code, finding it had been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, as the alleged reprisal stemmed from enforcing rights under the Employment Standards Act rather than the Code.

The remaining allegations of discrimination were permitted to proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant failed to dial in or contact the Tribunal to explain his absence, while the respondent was in attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application for being filed out of time.

The applicant argued that the discriminatory incident occurred in 2009 when he was denied retirement benefits, rather than in 2003 when he began receiving his pension.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and that his new arguments contradicted his original application and the evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after being asked for a pastoral letter of reference and whether he was a practicing Roman Catholic when applying for a position with the respondent school board.

The last application for employment was in August 2006, but the human rights application was not filed until June 2009.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly three-year delay and that ignorance of the law did not establish good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking documentary disclosure, including surveillance tapes and medical files, prior to the issuance of a Confirmation of Hearing.

The respondent argued the request was premature.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that disclosure obligations are triggered by the Confirmation of Hearing.

The request was denied as premature, with leave to file a new request after the standard disclosure process if necessary.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Rogers Communications Inc. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business, outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing proceeding before the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the Ministry of Labour claim for overtime pay and hours of work did not raise human rights issues.

The Tribunal emphasized its mandate to ensure the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of applications and found no obvious reason to delay its processes.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent City required her to apply for a minor variance to permit front pad parking for her large vehicle.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds and remove the individual respondents.

The Tribunal declined to deal with the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary matter, deferring them to the merits hearing, but granted the request to remove the individual respondents as their personal conduct was not a central issue.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision, alleging that the adjudicator was in a conflict of interest and that the decisions conflicted with established jurisprudence and Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no factual basis for the conflict of interest allegation.

The Tribunal also noted that the request was untimely and moot, as the underlying applications had already been dismissed as abandoned, and concluded that there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin after being banned from a Video Plus store that operated as a Sears catalogue agent.

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

The applicant claimed he was denied service because of his Polish surname, while the respondent maintained he was banned due to abusive behaviour towards an employee.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the denial of service to a prohibited ground and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to recall him from lay-off and a failure to accommodate his restrictions.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with in a grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The union requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss under section 45.1, finding that the other proceedings had not yet concluded or dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred to the grievance process under section 45.

The applicant, a transgender man who had not undergone surgery, challenged the requirement under section 36 of the Vital Statistics Act that requires 'transsexual surgery' to change the sex designation on a birth certificate.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending its decision in another case (XY v. Ontario) challenging the same provision.

Despite the applicant's objections that his circumstances differed, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as the pending decision would have a significant impact on the resolution of the complex legal issues involved.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the prior proceeding only addressed the applicant's entitlement to termination and vacation pay, and did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT appeal arose from the same factual basis as the human rights application.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal process.

The complainant requested an order to correct the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision to 'DOT Benefits Corp.' and to add '1263699 Ontario Limited' as a jointly and severally liable party.

The Tribunal granted the request to correct the typographical error in the corporate respondent's name pursuant to section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the new corporate entity and impose joint and several liability, noting that such a substantive change may not fall within its power to correct typographical errors, and suggested the complainant pursue enforcement remedies through the courts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services after her position was terminated while she was on a disability-related absence.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than two and a half years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the ongoing refusal to reverse the termination decision and the continuing lack of benefits were not separate acts of discrimination but continuing effects of the original termination.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin when salespersons at the respondent's store treated her rudely and asked 'What do you want?' upon her entry.

The respondent argued the interaction was a result of language and cultural differences, as the direct translation of a common Mandarin greeting is 'What do you want?'.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove her treatment was linked to her race, colour, or ethnic origin.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his retainer with his previous legal representative had ended and he needed time to prepare and submit required documents.

The respondents consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a change in representation and the need for more preparation time do not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's rules, even when requested on consent.

The respondent requested the dismissal of aspects of the applicants' human rights applications, arguing they were out of time or improperly expanded the scope of the original complaints.

The applicants alleged they were removed from their educational assistant positions for discriminatory reasons and experienced a poisoned work environment involving differential treatment of Aboriginal students.

The Tribunal reviewed the further particulars provided by the applicants and determined that certain allegations from 2006 and 2007 could be considered part of a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

However, an allegation from 2005 and another from 2009 were found to be out of time or beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicants requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because they had not yet secured counsel and had a scheduling conflict with an ODSP meeting.

The respondent objected, noting the applicants had two months' notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicants failed to comply with the 10-day notice requirement for rescheduling and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a last-minute adjournment.