HRTO 2012

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding the respondent's representative, who was neither a lawyer nor a licensed paralegal.

After the representative failed to provide a Law Society of Upper Canada license number or explain how he fit within the permitted exemptions for providing legal services, the Tribunal found he did not fall under any allowed exemption.

The Tribunal ordered that the representative not be permitted to act and that the respondent be regarded as unrepresented.

The applicant, a person with a developmental disability, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by paying her less than other employees and terminating her employment because of her disability.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the pay differential claim as being out of time, finding it was not a continuing contravention and the delay was not in good faith.

However, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant by terminating her employment because of her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $2,678.50 for lost income, along with public interest remedies.

The respondents requested an order to suspend the hearing and the directive for document disclosure, citing the excessive length of the applicant's 463-page application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for suspension, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

However, noting the excessive length of the application, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a concise descriptive document of 15 pages or less detailing how the respondents allegedly breached the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the respondent school board and principal.

The applicant claimed that the respondents refused to accept delivery of a previous human rights application, issued a trespass letter, and had police deliver the letter with a warning.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the refusal of delivery and the police officer's actions, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation concerning the issuance of the trespass letter by the principal to proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant might be able to establish a link between the letter and his previous human rights claim.

The applicant, a former secretary, alleged that her supervisor and part-owner of the corporate respondent sexually harassed her, made sexual advances, and created a poisoned work environment.

The respondents failed to respond to the application, and the matter proceeded as a default hearing.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent's persistent sexual advances, inappropriate touching, and use of sexually demeaning language constituted discrimination and sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant's termination or denial of a raise were linked to her refusal of the advances.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents requested that three separate human rights applications alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed be consolidated.

The applicants agreed with the request.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings given the significant overlap in the allegations and responses.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The complainants sought to withdraw their human rights complaints against the respondents, which included various Ontario ministries and school boards.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave for the complaints to be withdrawn.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to postpone the hearing or testify by videoconference or teleconference because she was moving out of the province.

The Tribunal denied the request to testify remotely, noting that the respondent denied any employment relationship existed, making the applicant's credibility a significant issue and her evidence key to the proceeding.

The applicant was permitted to propose alternate dates for an in-person hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated shortly after sending an email to his employer regarding his workplace limitations.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking his termination to his disability, relying solely on the coincidence in timing between his email and the termination for alleged theft.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration because the applicant had not received notice of the respondents' request to dismiss.

Upon reconsidering the issue of delay, the Tribunal found that the application was filed 18 months after the last alleged discriminatory incident, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that subsequent internal investigations and academic appeals constituted continuing acts of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded it was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and constructive dismissal due to the employer's failure to accommodate her physical restrictions.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a WSIB appeal regarding the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the factual allegations and legal issues in both proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination that allegedly occurred after the initial filing.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the respondent to file an amended Response within 21 days.

The applicants in three consolidated human rights applications requested to add two personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Morag Anderson to one application due to a clerical oversight, as she was already named in the narrative and other applications.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to add Leanne Tucker as a new respondent to all applications, applying the Smyth test.

The Tribunal found no compelling reason to add her, as the organizational respondent could adequately address the allegations and provide relief, and noted concerns about the applicants' delay in making the request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his only witness, a medical doctor, recently lost his wife and was unavailable to prepare or attend.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the circumstances exceptional under its Practice Direction and granted the adjournment, directing that the hearing be rescheduled no sooner than April.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the delivery of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

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 contact the Tribunal.

The respondent complied with its obligations and requested dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned her application due to her persistent failure to respond to directions, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The union sought leave to intervene in the proceeding.

On consent of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the union leave to intervene and directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on 'record of offences'.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application described general labour relations issues and workplace discipline, rather than a conviction for an offence under the Criminal Records Act or a provincial enactment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant misinterpreted the ground 'record of offences' to include disciplinary offences.

As there were no facts to support an allegation of discrimination under the Code, the application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove an allegation of age discrimination from the Application, arguing that no material facts were pleaded to support it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's only reference to age was a bald assertion that the respondent hired young advisors, which was insufficient to support a claim of age discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the allegation of age discrimination removed from the Application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that his newly retained counsel required more time to prepare due to a large volume of documentation.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that counsel had been retained more than a month before the hearing and the issues had been known to the applicant for nearly a year.

The applicant, originally represented by her former employer, requested to be added as the applicant in her own right and to remove her former employer as a party.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting it did not change the nature of the issues or prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant an extension of time to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.