HRTO 2012

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming her employment was terminated because she suffered a broken ankle 12 days prior.

The respondent employer maintained the termination was part of a broader workplace downsizing and the applicant was selected due to her disciplinary record.

The Tribunal found no evidence of a causal link between the temporary injury and the termination, noting other employees on light duties were retained and the applicant received pay in lieu of notice covering her recovery period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that new facts or evidence existed and cited mental illness and fear of reprisal as reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not present any new facts that could not have been obtained earlier, and that the issues of mental illness and fear of reprisal had already been addressed in the original decision.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicants, former building superintendents, alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment and sought an interim remedy to prevent their eviction from the building where they resided.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Landlord and Tenant Board had already dismissed the respondents' application to terminate the tenancy, rendering the eviction issue moot.

The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the remaining requested remedies and directed the matter to expedited mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal when attempting to obtain service at the respondent bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banking is a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the apprehension of her infant son by the children's aid society.

The last alleged incident of discrimination occurred almost three years prior to filing, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why she did not pursue her rights in a timely manner.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under a collective agreement.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that not all issues were identical.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, applying its general approach to avoid duplication of proceedings since labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and ethnic origin sought disclosure of various documents and proposed to call numerous co-workers as witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the document disclosure requests, finding the requested records were either irrelevant or inherently personal to non-parties.

The Tribunal deferred the decision on additional witnesses, directing that the hearing would commence with testimony from the applicant and the personal respondent before determining if further witnesses were necessary.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the complainants to confirm whether they intended to proceed with their complaints, warning that failure to respond within 21 days could result in dismissal for abandonment.

None of the complainants communicated with the Tribunal, and some mail was returned due to outdated addresses.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex, approximately two years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay in filing was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to health issues, family responsibilities, ongoing severance negotiations, ignorance of the limitation period, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had retained counsel and raised Code-related issues within the limitation period, and failed to establish that her disability or other factors directly impeded her ability to file a timely application.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including failure to accommodate and termination while absent.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application to include claims for severance and general damages.

The respondent did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the hearing had not yet been scheduled, no documents had been exchanged, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her work-related back injury and discriminatory termination.

The respondents sought to defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Appeals Resolution Officer regarding the same injury and return-to-work issues.

The Tribunal found a substantial overlap between the issues in the two proceedings, particularly regarding the nature of the disability and accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer issues a final decision.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The applicant's union, Construction Workers Local 53, requested to intervene in the proceeding, citing concerns that the application might engage provisions of the collective agreement relating to termination.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent objected, and noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and creed.

He described his creed as a belief in being truthful, rooted in his Catholic faith, and alleged he was forced to modify invoice dates against his beliefs.

The Tribunal found no evidence of differential treatment based on his religious beliefs and noted he had not requested accommodation for his creed.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the creed allegation and struck that ground from the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add gender as a ground of discrimination, increase the general damages claimed to $25,000, and add a request for a public interest remedy regarding the respondent's appearance standards.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments did not change the nature of the matter or necessitate further evidence, and allowed the amendments to the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against Rogers Communications.

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

After receiving written submissions from the applicant acknowledging the respondent's federal regulation, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that inter-provincial telecommunications companies fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against Rogers Communications.

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

The applicant acknowledged this in his submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the respondent is an inter-provincial federally-regulated telecommunications company subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice regarding the disclosure of witness lists, witness statements, and documents 45 days prior to the hearing.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not provide the required materials or request an extension.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned, dismissed it, and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine if it intended to continue the application, but received no response.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the application against the employer raised credibility issues that could not be resolved at a summary hearing, and directed it to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no evidence that its refusal to file a grievance was based on discriminatory grounds.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over a federally regulated business, and directed the applicant to file a complete application and submissions.

After granting an extension and referring the applicant to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the applicant failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.