HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegation of a discriminatory wage rate was untimely and did not constitute a series of incidents with the termination allegation.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his termination was linked to a prohibited ground or was a reprisal for previously raising a human rights issue.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, age, and reprisal.

After her request for an adjournment due to lack of representation was denied, the Tribunal directed her to confirm her intention to participate in the scheduled hearing.

When the applicant failed to provide written confirmation or communicate with the Tribunal, the hearing was cancelled and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a former employee of a Tim Hortons franchise, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, race, and ethnic origin regarding her termination and treatment during employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated for providing food without payment, and there was no evidence linking the termination to a prohibited ground.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations of discriminatory treatment, noting that age-related comments were part of tolerated workplace banter in which the applicant participated, and she failed to formally complain under the employer's harassment policy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed the application following a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not identify any new facts, evidence, or other grounds set out in Rule 26.5 to justify a reconsideration, but merely reiterated arguments previously made.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an order to reactivate his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The application had previously been deferred pending a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on jurisdiction.

The Commission declined to deal with the complaint, finding the respondent did not fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondent to file a response within 30 days.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

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

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

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting mutually agreeable dates to reschedule a hearing and asking the applicant to confirm her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the respondent insurance company regarding his long-term disability benefits.

He claimed the CPP disability offset was discriminatory, the requests for medical information were excessive and harassing, and his benefits were suspended in reprisal for complaining.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the offset and reprisal allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The harassment allegation was dismissed because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex (pregnancy), claiming the respondent employer denied her accommodation requests, which prevented her from working the hours required for maternity leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the completion of a related WSIB process.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting her WSIB issues were largely resolved, except for an unrelated chronic pain appeal.

In the absence of submissions from the respondent, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file its response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, citizenship, and creed.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and argued that several allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that evidence was required to determine if an inference of discrimination could be drawn.

The Tribunal also found the application timely, as the allegations were sufficiently thematically connected to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Requests for document production and intervention were also denied as premature or incomplete.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex and family status when the respondent transferred her to the night shift as an accommodation for her pregnancy-related lifting restrictions.

The Tribunal previously deferred the Application pending a union grievance on the same issues.

The union subsequently withdrew the grievance without the applicant's agreement.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

Finding that the grievance was withdrawn without the applicant's consent and no settlement was reached, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the Application had not been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and allowed the Application to continue.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his human rights application against a Justice of the Peace and a public prosecutor based on judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence, instead restating previous submissions and referencing irrelevant legal proceedings in India.

The applicant was also directed to provide a valid mailing address for the remaining respondent, a security guard, or face abandonment of the application.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disabilities sometimes prevented him from doing his own banking, forcing him to rely on others.

The Tribunal held that the WSIB's practice of paying benefits by cheque constituted constructive discrimination, as it had an adverse impact on the applicant due to his disability.

The WSIB was ordered to pay $1,800 for financial losses resulting from theft by a person the applicant relied upon, and $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after he was not selected for an interview for a support analyst position with the respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the applicant relied only on subjective belief.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no evidence that the hiring manager knew his age or that his age was a factor in the decision.

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

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the respondent's cancellation of passenger train service in Northern Ontario.

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

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the allegation that the cancellation itself was discriminatory, focusing instead on the inaccessibility of the replacement bus service.

The Tribunal found that the bus inaccessibility allegation was present in the original application and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to clarify these allegations.

The applicant, a physician, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding its inquiry into his capacity to practise medicine and the denial of his certificate of registration.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the College based on the same facts, which was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the applications because the civil court had already finally determined the issue of whether the applicant's rights were infringed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal, stemming from workplace health and safety concerns and a subsequent injury diagnosis.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code and was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as the applicant's concerns related to occupational health and safety rather than differential treatment based on a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications filed by different applicants against the same respondent should be consolidated.

The applications contained identical allegations of discrimination with respect to services, goods, and facilities because of race and ancestry.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and ordered the applications consolidated.

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

A mediation session was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant, warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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