HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and marital status against Shaw Satellite G.P. and several individual employees.

The Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue, noting the corporate respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated business.

The respondents confirmed the corporate respondent is an inter-provincial federally-regulated telecommunications company.

The applicant did not file responding submissions.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the federally-regulated company and its employees under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was pressured into withdrawing his grievances due to his mental disability.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was already dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and under section 34 for delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary teleconference hearing to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed on these grounds.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was granted a final extension to file a response and explain the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

After the OCCPS proceedings concluded, the Tribunal repeatedly requested that the applicant file a Form 10 to reactivate the application and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

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

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously found that the applicant, a bus driver for OC Transpo, was a federally-regulated employee because the employer regularly engaged in inter-provincial transportation.

The applicant submitted new documents indicating he was moved to a 'city wide position' and later laid off.

The Tribunal found that the applicant remained a federally-regulated employee during the relevant period and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her by vulgarly grabbing his crotch during a shift.

The incident was captured on video surveillance.

After the applicant presented her evidence at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that there was no prima facie case.

The adjudicator reviewed the video evidence and concluded that it clearly contradicted the applicant's description of the events, showing the supervisor merely adjusting his clothing for a split second.

Finding no reasonable basis for the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application without requiring the respondent to call evidence.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 17, 2012, citing the applicant's late disclosure of documents and inadequate witness statements.

The applicant consented to the adjournment, noting that some of his documents were destroyed when his residence was condemned.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and expeditious to resolve outstanding production requests and obtain proper witness statements before commencing the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal, while simultaneously pursuing a union grievance regarding his termination.

Both parties consented to deferring the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal deferred the application and deferred consideration of the respondent's request to strike portions of the application until such time as the matter might be reactivated.

The applicant, who has a terminal illness and is on a waiting list for subsidized housing, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

During a summary hearing, the respondent explained the priority system and the applicant's position on the waiting lists, and added him to an additional list at his request.

Satisfied with the respondent's efforts, the applicant requested to withdraw his human rights Application.

The Tribunal granted the request and closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his demotion from a head caretaker position and an ongoing failure to accommodate his physical restrictions.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was a discrete event that did not form part of a series of incidents with the subsequent alleged failures to accommodate, and dismissed the allegations regarding the demotion as untimely.

However, the Tribunal allowed the timely allegations of ongoing failure to accommodate to proceed, while ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding those claims.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and citizenship, claiming he was denied seniority over a Canadian citizen who started work a week earlier but was hired later.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A.1 to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had no evidence beyond the circumstantial difference in citizenship to link the seniority decision to a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing, arguing that he needed more time to respond to the respondents' materials, which he claimed contained misrepresentations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had complied with the timeline for filing materials and that the applicant's disagreement with the respondents' position did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay.

The applicant, a minor hockey player, alleged that the respondents' residency rules discriminated against him on the basis of sex.

He argued that boys playing in the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA) faced restrictive residency rules and waiver requirements, whereas girls playing in the Ontario Women's Hockey Association (OWHA) did not.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding that the rules did not constitute direct or constructive discrimination.

The Tribunal held that comparing boys in the OMHA to girls in the OWHA was not an appropriate comparison, as they played in different leagues with different rules, and the residency rules did not have a disproportionate adverse effect on boys within the OMHA itself.

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 warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without its participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant, a former police cadet, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and ethnic origin after failing examinations and resigning in December 2009.

The application was filed in July 2011, beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the discrimination was ongoing due to the respondent's refusal to let her rewrite the exams in 2011 and the destruction of her log books.

The Tribunal found these later events were not part of a series of incidents but attempts to revive a stale claim.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation resulting in his eviction.

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be considered abandoned.

The applicant explained that he had not received notice due to a change of address following his eviction and a subsequent period of homelessness.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to update his contact information as required, he had not abandoned his application and rescheduling the hearing would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the summary hearing to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant via email and regular mail.

The applicant failed to attend the commencement of the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

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

She argued that she acted in good faith, was not mentally able to file earlier, and that there should be no limitation period for harassment claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely restating arguments that were or could have been made previously, and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and an individual respondent.

The individual respondent's copy of the application was returned because they were no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current address for the individual respondent or file a request for an order during proceedings to compel the corporate respondent to provide it.

The applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as against the individual respondent pursuant to Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.