HRTO 2012

The applicant, a disc jockey with a physical disability requiring the use of canes, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by denying him a promised full-time position and reducing his shifts because the club manager believed his disability negatively affected the club's 'optics'.

The Tribunal also found that the respondents engaged in reprisal by changing the applicant's shift after learning he had filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $62,154.79 for lost earnings and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application pending the resolution of his outstanding WSIB appeals for loss of earnings benefits.

The respondent consented to the deferral after receiving further information.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the overlap in time and issues between the WSIB claims and the human rights application.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to have a witness testify by affidavit, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the requirement for in-person testimony on contested issues.

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 requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications against her former employer and union as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law regarding a unionized employee's right to independent counsel during grievance settlements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant participated in the settlement, signed a release, and failed to demonstrate any conflict with established jurisprudence or other grounds justifying reconsideration.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file hearing materials within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario requested intervenor status in a human rights application filed by one of its members against the school board.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the union should support him rather than the employer.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, finding it had an evident interest in the health and safety of its members and the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability after being prevented from taking his segway on specialized transit buses.

The respondent City of London requested to be removed as a party, arguing that the transit services are owned and controlled by the London Transit Commission, a separate corporate entity.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application against the City, finding no specific allegations or basis for liability against it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing because its newly retained counsel was unavailable on the hearing dates due to a long-standing trial.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled and counsel's subsequent unavailability do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to address preliminary issues in four related applications alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted a request to substitute M.D. as the next friend for the minor applicant E.D. One applicant, Rebecca Goldshmidt, failed to attend the conference or confirm her intention to proceed, resulting in the dismissal of her application as abandoned.

The Tribunal consolidated the three remaining applications, finding common issues of fact and law against the same respondents, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the Chief of Peel Regional Police as a personal respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services because of disability.

The applicant consented to the removal.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that no material facts were pled against the Chief of Police, there was no issue of vicarious liability, and the corporate respondent could provide the requested remedies.

The Request was granted and the Chief of Police was removed as a respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application following a summary hearing.

He argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal found that the 'new evidence' consisted mostly of reiterated arguments and could have been presented earlier.

The Tribunal also found no material errors of fact or conflict with jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of a related claim under the Employment Standards Act.

Finding that the factual circumstances were identical and the potential remedies overlapped, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings.

The respondent requested the dismissal of an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was a claim for breach of contract and did not seek remedies for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, section 34(11) of the Code did not apply to bar the application.

The respondent's request for dismissal was denied, and it was ordered to file a full response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because there were multiple ongoing grievances and other proceedings involving substantially the same facts.

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

The Tribunal found that deferral was fair and just to avoid parallel proceedings, and deferred the application pending the resolution of the related grievances.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability during a traffic stop.

The respondent police officers had issued summonses under the Highway Traffic Act and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act during the stop, which were currently before the Court.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights applications until the Court proceedings were resolved.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it inappropriate to proceed with a hearing that would require making factual findings about matters currently before the Courts.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship due to the employer's application of ITAR regulations, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on procedural matters.

The Tribunal limited the intervening Union's participation to written and oral submissions, denying its request to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses to avoid undue delay and repetition.

The Tribunal permitted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene regarding Charter issues.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that extrinsic evidence from the applicant's former counsel regarding the interpretation of a prior Minutes of Settlement and Release was inadmissible, as the language of the release was clear and unambiguous.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed in part due to a prior settlement and deferred in part due to ongoing grievance arbitrations.

The Tribunal found that the portion of the application relating to discipline for refusing to disclose criminal charges had been settled in a grievance process, and dismissed it as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal deferred the remaining allegations, which were the subject of ongoing grievances, pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The respondents requested an order during proceedings to compel the applicant to comply with his pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant had failed to provide any documents or witness statements and did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the required materials within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents' request to adjourn the hearing was denied as there were no extraordinary circumstances.

The self-represented applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision 202 days after it was issued, well beyond the 30-day limit.

The applicant argued he did not appreciate the ramifications of the decision regarding the evidence he could call at his upcoming hearing on reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the explanation for the delay unpersuasive and noting that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of a related grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The applicant did not oppose the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law, noting the applicant could request to reactivate the application within 60 days after the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.