HRTO 2012

The applicant, a practising Sikh, alleged discrimination in employment because of creed, specifically regarding the respondent's requirement that his beard be bound.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada (WSO) requested intervenor status to make submissions on the accommodation of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for intervention and granted the WSO's request, finding it was well-placed to provide assistance on the significance of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents engaged in reprisal or a threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, failing to identify any acts that might amount to discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant was directed to file responding submissions but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding her accommodation and termination.

She also filed grievances through her union raising the same issues, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which only the respondent replied, supporting deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply human rights legislation.

The corporate respondent requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment and disability discrimination be dismissed as untimely.

The respondent argued that the last incident occurred in February 2011 when it informed the applicant of the steps taken to address her concerns, making her March 2012 application out of time.

The applicant argued that her resignation in March 2011, prompted by the respondent's failure to accommodate her disability and protect her from a poisoned work environment, was the final incident.

The Tribunal found that the events culminating in the applicant's resignation constituted a series of incidents within the meaning of section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and therefore the application was timely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated after she suffered an injury in a slip and fall accident.

She also filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour seeking termination and public holiday pay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the Ministry of Labour complaint.

As neither party provided submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

The applicant alleged discrimination by his union and several employers regarding work opportunities and accommodation of his disability.

At a summary hearing, the applicant conceded that allegations against several employers and the personal respondent were untimely or should be removed.

The Tribunal found the remaining allegations against the union were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and dismissed them.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant's allegation that Plan Group failed to accommodate his disability up to the point of undue hardship had a reasonable prospect of success, as a factual nexus existed and a full evidentiary record was required to determine if the duty to accommodate was met.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal.

Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, the applicant filed requests for interim orders to restrain the respondent from damaging his career and to compel early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for a restraining order, finding no evidence that the respondent had made negative statements to outside parties or affected the applicant's employment endeavours.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early document production as premature, noting that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying production before the standard procedural trigger.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of family status, disability, and sex.

Prior to the application, the applicant had filed a union grievance raising the same Code-related claims, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the Code-related claims but found the employer had interfered with the applicant's union activity.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration proceeding and that the Tribunal does not have the authority to judicially review or reconsider the arbitrator's decision.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order that communications between the applicant and its counsel be in writing, except during hearings or other Tribunal proceedings.

The applicant and the individual respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the order on consent.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to recognize the severe extent of his disabilities and denying him benefits.

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

Applying established case law, the Tribunal found that an allegation that a statutory benefit provider misapplied its rules or misinterpreted medical documentation does not amount to a Code violation.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her deferred human rights application, confirming that her related grievance and Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings had concluded.

The respondents either consented to the re-activation or did not oppose it.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and noted that a separate Case Assessment Direction would issue regarding next steps, including the respondents' requests for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed applications alleging a breach of a 2009 settlement agreement by his former employer and union.

The applicant claimed he was tricked into signing the settlement and accepted it under economic duress.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code to consider these allegations as a breach of settlement.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that an allegation of duress is a claim that the contract does not represent a voluntary agreement, not an allegation that a party contravened the settlement.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of a visual disability after the respondent refused to renew the waiver for his Class D driver's license.

The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding delay and jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the application was filed more than two years after the respondent's decision not to renew the waiver.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay that would satisfy the good faith requirement under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.

In advance of the hearing, the parties disputed the production of certain documents.

The applicant objected to the respondents' late production of surveillance footage and investigator reports, which the Tribunal deferred to the hearing.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's financial records, vehicle documents, and medical records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce these documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of economic loss, mitigation, and the extent of the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to seek legal representation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that a party's decision to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, particularly where the party had several months to do so.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment regarding a job competition.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of various documents, including interview notes and names of all applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for materials relating to other unsuccessful candidates, finding the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance.

The respondent was ordered to produce the formal offer made to the successful candidate, as agreed.

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 a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and age in respect of employment.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the alleged phone calls demanding the applicant return to work were sufficiently connected to the other allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.

Following an interim decision dismissing most allegations, the Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegation—that the employer discriminated by not paying a spread allowance for split shifts worked as a rear door loader—had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the allegation against the employer to proceed, noting that rear door loaders are primarily disabled workers and one of the few categories not receiving the allowance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to negotiate the allowance was based on a discriminatory factor.