HRTO 2012

The applicant filed requests for orders during proceedings and an interim remedy seeking reinstatement to his employment, alleging ongoing discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the significant onus to demonstrate that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy and confirmed that the application would continue to be held in abeyance pending the release of a decision in the applicant's first application.

The applicant, a single mother of four, alleged that the respondents refused to rent a house to her because of her sex, family status, and marital status.

The parties communicated exclusively through their real estate agents.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the applicant's agent to be internally inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the dates of offers and her reaction to a request to view a sinkhole on the property.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet her burden of establishing discrimination and accepted the respondents' non-discriminatory reasons for refusing the rental offers, namely the lower rent offered and unacceptable conditions.

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

The applicant's union, United Steelworkers Local 9597, filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it may be affected by any remedy ordered.

The applicant objected to the union's participation, noting her previous allegations against the union had been dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, finding that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

Le requérant a demandé l'ajournement d'une audience sommaire prévue par téléconférence, au motif qu'il se trouvait à l'extérieur du Canada et n'avait pas accès à un téléphone pour faire un appel interurbain.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande, concluant que le fait de devoir dépenser de l'argent pour participer à une audience depuis l'étranger ne constitue pas une circonstance exceptionnelle justifiant un ajournement.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after her union withdrew her grievances.

The respondent objected because the request was filed approximately two weeks after the 60-day deadline under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time, noting the applicant was self-represented, had limited English proficiency, the delay was short, and the respondent suffered no specific prejudice.

The applicant, a male busser at a restaurant, alleged sex discrimination because the respondent predominantly hired women as higher-earning bartenders and table servers.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant never applied for or expressed interest in the bartender or server positions during his employment, and therefore could not establish that he was disadvantaged or denied a position because of his gender.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, marital status, and age.

After initially failing to provide specific allegations, the applicant submitted that she was subjected to unwanted sexual advances and verbal sexual harassment before resigning.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, noting that the applicant had signed Minutes of Settlement containing a release of claims under the Code, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether allowing the Application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application by failing to provide staff training on 'Transgendered Health Competency' as agreed.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed developed and delivered the training in consultation with the specified clinic, and that the settlement did not require the training to be delivered by an external organization or to be of a specific duration.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment almost two years after her dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was actively pursuing her concerns with other organizations and experiencing ongoing hardship.

The Tribunal found that pursuing rights elsewhere and continuing effects of termination do not extend the time limit or constitute good faith delay.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested to reschedule a hearing date because her newly retained representative was unavailable due to an out-of-country family matter.

The respondent and intervenor did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested more than 14 days after the Confirmation of Hearing are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that retaining counsel who is unavailable on an already scheduled date does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent, who subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal previously held the application in abeyance.

The applicant advised that the stay remained in effect but expressed a desire to proceed once lifted.

The Tribunal ordered the application to continue to be held in abeyance and directed the applicant to provide an update within seven months.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her use of a condominium gym.

She requested an interim remedy of increased security patrols during her workouts, alleging bullying and harassment by other residents and staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the complicated fact situation was best decided after hearing all the evidence at the upcoming hearing on the merits, and noting there were no allegations of interference with the applicant's residential premises.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to include allegations related to the recent termination of his employment.

The applicant argued the termination was a continuation of the reprisal alleged in the original application.

The respondents did not oppose the request but denied the new allegations were related to the original ones.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that dealing with all issues in a single application would be efficient, the new events were recent, and the respondents would not be prejudiced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sex, specifically regarding a demotion and termination related to her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant regarding her termination.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings involving the same facts and issues, despite the applicant's concerns about the union's handling of her grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being unsuccessful in job competitions.

The applicant's bargaining agent filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking clarification of the issues, alleging the applicant was attempting to amend her application via an undisclosed email.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a copy of the email to the Tribunal and the intervenor within 7 days.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions or confirm his intentions to continue the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

Following a case management discussion, the applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include allegations regarding an incident that occurred on or about May 23, 2012.

The respondent had previously submitted that this incident was relevant to the issues raised.

The Tribunal granted the request, permitting the applicant to file an amended application and setting a timeline for the respondent to file an amended response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate with respect to employment because of disability, as well as termination due to disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that the WSIB proceeding dealt with ongoing entitlement for a low back injury and recognition of permanent impairment, which were unrelated to the human rights allegations of harassment, failure to accommodate, and discriminatory termination.

The Tribunal agreed that the WSIB proceedings raised issues unrelated to the human rights application and declined to defer the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on a record of offences, specifically pending criminal charges.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because pending charges do not fall within the Code's definition of 'record of offences'.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment against an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent, the City of Ottawa, added itself as a respondent, accepted vicarious liability for the individual's actions, and requested the individual's removal.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the individual respondent, finding his participation unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The Tribunal also scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the City's request to dismiss the application based on prior Minutes of Settlement and potential delay.