HRTO 2012

The applicant, a tenant of the institutional respondent, alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of sex after being sexually assaulted by the personal respondent's brother, a non-resident.

The applicant also alleged that the personal respondent verbally harassed her in reprisal for complaining to the police and the institutional respondent.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the Code's protection against harassment in accommodation does not extend to non-residents, and the alleged reprisal was not related to enforcing a right under the Code.

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

After initially indicating illness and a desire to reschedule mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Following a finding of liability for sex discrimination and reprisal, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedies.

The applicant was passed over for promotion to assistant manager because she was a woman, and subsequently faced severe reprisals including a dramatic reduction in hours when she complained.

The Tribunal awarded $12,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $23,586.59 for lost wages representing the difference between her actual earnings and what she would have earned as an assistant manager.

The Tribunal also ordered the individual respondents to complete human rights training and the corporate respondent to develop a comprehensive anti-discrimination policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, and reprisal, stemming from a workplace assault and subsequent events.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to the investigation of the assault, safety shoe checks, and reprisal, finding no evidence linking them to a prohibited ground under the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the respondent breached its duty to accommodate the applicant's physical restrictions to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, a partial-load faculty member, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after his teaching hours were reduced from 10-12 hours to 3 hours per term.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were vague and impressionistic, and there was no evidence linking the reduction in hours to his race or colour.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and sex against her union and its president.

She claimed that a secret ballot vote was discriminatorily ordered to determine whether her grievance regarding her termination would proceed to arbitration.

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 point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds, noting that the union's decision to hold a secret ballot was based on the sensitive nature of the allegations against her.

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

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an Interim Decision that removed a personal respondent and substituted the corporate employer as the respondent.

The request was filed more than six months after the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide a meaningful justification for the delay and did not establish good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that even if timely, the request did not meet any of the substantive criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following the completion of an appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and a peace bond application.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but requested a hearing to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in the other proceedings.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered that a hearing on the section 45.1 dismissal request be scheduled once the transcript of the peace bond proceeding is available.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it declined to investigate his complaint regarding police conduct in 1991.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application, arguing the SIU performs an adjudicative function not covered by the Code as a service, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the SIU's investigative function is a service under the Code, but dismissed the application because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in proving the SIU's refusal to investigate was based on his disability.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to defer, finding that the grievance had not proceeded in a timely fashion and there was no immediate risk of concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The Tribunal later wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the grievance process and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievance proceeding within 30 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college's non-exemptible examination requirement for a specialty certificate discriminated against him.

The respondent college requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by its Registration Committee.

The Tribunal found that the Registration Committee process was a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, that the discrimination issue was essentially the same, and that the applicant had a full opportunity to present his case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it is not an appellate body for other tribunals with a public protection mandate.

The applicant filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The first sought an order compelling the Tribunal to provide particulars, documents, and reasons for scheduling the hearing.

The second sought an order compelling the respondent to produce all internal documentation related to the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the first request, noting the hearing was scheduled on its own initiative pursuant to its Rules of Procedure.

The second request was denied as premature, as documentary disclosure rules do not apply to summary hearings.

The applicant, a parent of a student, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it provides educational services to students, not parents.

The Tribunal found that while some interactions between a parent and a school board may constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, allegations relating exclusively to the quality of educational services provided to the student, or interactions with third parties, do not.

The Application was dismissed in part, with the remaining allegations regarding direct interactions between the applicant and the respondent proceeding to a hearing.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple Tribunal Directions requiring him to deliver his submissions to the respondent.

Finding that the applicant had abandoned the application by failing to participate further in the process, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for document production, permission to tape record the hearing, and case management issues regarding proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal denied production of the applicant's final exam, campus police work histories, and certain telephone records, finding them irrelevant to the bifurcated issue of liability.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce photographic evidence of an officer's alleged injuries.

The applicant was permitted to tape record the hearing on conditions.

Finally, the Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's proposed witnesses whose evidence was deemed irrelevant to liability or who failed to comply with expert witness rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, family status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to lack specific allegations of discrimination.

After the applicant provided supplementary submissions detailing alleged harassment and reprisal related to his PTSD and a previous human rights complaint, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the personal respondent.

The personal respondent had previously been convicted of sexually assaulting the applicant in criminal court.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to preclude the respondents from relitigating the criminal court's findings of fact and verdict.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that allowing relitigation would violate the principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice, and would constitute an abuse of process.