HRTO 2012

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings regarding the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure requirements under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant had provided a list of arguably relevant documents but not the copies.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide copies of all arguably relevant documents within 15 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence at the hearing.

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

The applicant argued that the summary hearing process was discriminatory based on his disability and disagreed with the adjudicator's interpretation of the facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was given ample opportunity to present his case and that the request was merely an attempt to reargue the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a minor represented by her father, alleged discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race and ancestry after she was not selected for a competitive swimming program.

The respondent argued that the selection process was based on merit and that there were limited spots available.

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

Finding that the applicant's claims were based on speculation and that there was no evidence linking the respondent's decision to the applicant's race or ancestry, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, claiming she was denied a position after stating she could not work on Saturdays.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents related to the job competition and an order compelling the respondent to comply with Tribunal rules regarding document and witness lists.

The respondent failed to file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the respondent's defence that other candidates were better qualified, and ordered the respondent to produce the documents with personal contact information redacted, and to comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction and an Interim Decision ordering him to deliver documents and confirm his attendance at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant abandoned the Application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age following his termination.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant sought to amend his application to add allegations of racial discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to the significant delay and the fact that the new allegations were completely unrelated to the original filing.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's original claims regarding disability and age discrimination could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and directed the matter to continue in the Tribunal process.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application after withdrawing a related grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondents opposed, arguing abuse of process.

The Tribunal allowed the reactivation, finding no abuse of process as no decision on the merits had been rendered at the grievance stage.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted requests to remove several personal respondents, noting the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to proceed against the individuals.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, while also having an outstanding grievance regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which no parties responded.

Finding significant overlap in the subject matter and relying on the principle that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed more than 16 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for his union grievance to conclude and had been advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pursue the grievance first.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanations, finding no evidence that he was advised to delay his application or that he was misled by his union.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming she was demoted and had payroll duties removed after returning from a pregnancy-related hospitalization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was filed 10 days late and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the law and the stress of a new baby were insufficient to justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and sex after he was not hired for an accounting manager position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, including being asked his graduation year during an interview, did not establish a link to the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against the WSIB and its service provider regarding his labour market re-entry program.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent and dismissed most of the allegations against the corporate respondents, including reprisal and general unfairness.

However, the Tribunal permitted the allegations concerning a delay in providing disability accommodation and a threat related to family status to continue.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and the application were based on the same facts and issues.

To avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated following her disclosure of pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) who dismissed the applicant's prior claim under the Employment Standards Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Figliola, the Tribunal found that the ESO proceeding dealt with essentially the same legal issues and provided the applicant an opportunity to know and meet the case against her.

The Tribunal declined to review the procedural or substantive correctness of the ESO's decision, noting the applicant's proper recourse was an appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on family status.

After reviewing the respondents' materials, the applicant requested to amend her application to include the ground of disability.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment related to the same core event, flowed from the respondents' materials, and would not cause prejudice or negatively impact the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin against a Justice of the Peace, a public prosecutor, and a court security officer following an incident at a courthouse.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Justice of the Peace and the public prosecutor on the basis of judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the court security officer has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy after she was terminated from her job at a sandwich shop.

The applicant had experienced pregnancy-related medical issues and texted the owner's daughter that her doctor advised her to stop working immediately.

The owner, unaware of the text, terminated the applicant for failing to show up for her scheduled shift.

The Tribunal found that the applicant reasonably believed she had informed her employer of her medical absence, and that the termination was discriminatory as it was connected to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the applicant suffered no lost wages as she was medically unable to work.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to provide particulars regarding the expected evidence of some of her witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's witness statements for three witnesses only provided general topics and did not meet the Tribunal's requirements.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particularized witness statements and further details regarding her allegations about being required to attend an Annual General Meeting.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment that led to her early retirement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant retired, which was more than three years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the union's decision not to pursue her grievance constituted a new incident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding workplace grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

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