HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

She had also filed a claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

The applicant did not respond, while the respondent supported deferral.

Finding the subject matter of both proceedings identical, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the ESA proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had concurrent grievances proceeding to arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board based on the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and his union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment by Canada Post Corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated entity, and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the matter—alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her termination—had already been dealt with in a union grievance arbitration, which awarded her damages.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely restated previous arguments and disagreed with the arbitrator's remedy, providing no valid grounds under Rule 26.5 to reconsider the decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her union discriminated against her on the basis of disability and reprisal in its handling of her grievance following her termination.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the union's failure to advance human rights concerns and failure to accommodate her mental state, finding no link to a Code ground and no basis for a failure to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's allegations of reprisal to proceed to a hearing, as she alleged the union threatened reprisal when she advised them she wished to file a human rights application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after an OLG employee confiscated his Winners Circle Rewards card and had him removed from the premises.

The respondent asserted the card was confiscated because the applicant breached the rules by sharing it with others.

At a summary hearing, the applicant admitted to sharing the card and could not point to any evidence linking the confiscation to his race or colour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to amend his human rights application to include the social area of services in respect of two requests for disability-related accommodation.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

The applicant conceded this point, and the Tribunal dismissed the existing allegations.

However, the applicant indicated an intention to amend his application to include subsequent events leading to his termination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a formal Request for an Order During Proceedings to set out the proposed amendments, failing which the application would be dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, a trucking company.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that it is a federally regulated interprovincial freight carrier and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent's business is interprovincial trucking and thus governed by federal law pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, and reprisal after being banned from a mall and subsequently escorted off the premises on two later occasions.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of direct or circumstantial discrimination, noting that the applicant's mere belief that the security staff's actions were motivated by racism or sexism was insufficient, and that there was a clear, non-discriminatory explanation for the respondent's conduct.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response on consent.

The applicant, a 65-year-old salesperson, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age.

The respondent employer maintained that the applicant was not dismissed but had resigned after a new general manager was hired to take over some of the owner's duties.

The Tribunal applied the test for credibility and found the respondent's version of events more probable, noting the absence of a termination letter and the applicant's own resignation letter.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's inquiries about the applicant's retirement plans were legitimate and that no discriminatory termination occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her three applications following a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The request for reconsideration was filed past the 30-day deadline without a persuasive explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the applicant's claim that she was unaware the summary hearing could result in dismissal was contradicted by clear language in the Case Assessment Directions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested to amend the remedies sought in her human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the amendment on consent, noting the absence of prejudice.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a related union grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the matters.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to hear arguments on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction as the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions and was granted an extension of time to do so.

The applicant failed to provide submissions or make further contact with the Tribunal by the extended deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal arising from a 2003 sexual assault by a co-worker and the employer's subsequent investigation.

The employer and the individual management respondent requested dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the employer's investigation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a prior grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations regarding the sexual assault and the co-worker's subsequent conduct for delay under s. 34 of the Code, concluding that the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith, as she had been capable of pursuing a WSIB claim, a police report, and an internal complaint during the same period.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of family status, related to child support proceedings involving her former spouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the applicant to explain how the allegations related to the social areas and prohibited grounds of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged adverse treatment in the civil justice system and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

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

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure and failed to respond to the respondents' requests or the Tribunal's directions in a previous interim decision.

As the applicant's deadline for compliance passed without any materials being filed, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.