HRTO 2012

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the personal respondent was required to report for military duty.

The applicant opposed the request and raised an outstanding complaint of bias against the adjudicator.

The Tribunal noted that the bias complaint had already been addressed and denied in a previous interim decision.

Finding the respondents' reasons valid and unlikely to cause undue delay, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the parties to provide mutually agreeable dates for rescheduling.

The respondents requested the removal of certain corporate and personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal.

The respondents also requested that the application be deferred pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal removed three corporate respondents on consent but declined to remove the remaining corporate and personal respondents, finding that complex issues of fact and law regarding corporate liability following an asset sale should not be determined at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request, noting there was no active WSIB proceeding and a WSIB decision would not resolve the human rights issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent Hospital to produce copies of work assignment schedules.

The applicant sought these documents to identify dates of alleged discrimination for the purpose of participating in the Hospital's internal investigation of new allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it has no jurisdiction to supervise internal investigations and that the request for document disclosure was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged that her family physician discriminated against her on the basis of her place of origin (the Philippines) in the provision of medical services.

She claimed the physician made discriminatory remarks about fibromyalgia in the Filipino community, delayed a specialist referral, and refused to complete disability forms.

The Tribunal accepted the physician's version of events, finding that the physician merely expressed a general diagnostic observation based on her experience.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant was treated differently or disadvantageously compared to patients of other backgrounds.

The application was dismissed.

The four applicants filed human rights applications that were previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing SIU and OIPRD investigations and a criminal proceeding.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicants requesting an update on the status of the other proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

None of the applicants responded to the Tribunal's letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had not yet received a pardon for her criminal conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the Human Rights Code definition of 'record of offences' only protects convictions for which a pardon has been granted.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because a restaurant lacked an automatic door opener.

The application named both the franchisor and the franchisee as respondents.

The franchisor brought a preliminary request to be removed as a respondent, arguing it was a separate entity from the franchisee and had no involvement in the restaurant's operations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it inappropriate to remove the franchisor at a preliminary stage without a factual basis regarding the legal relationship and the franchisor's control over the installation of automatic door openers.

The applicant, a former waitress, alleged that the respondent, her general manager, sexually harassed her through explicit comments, a text message, and a highly vulgar voicemail.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and solicitation by a person in a position of power, violating the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the severe psychological impact, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement containing a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was void because she lacked the mental capacity to understand it.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not establish a lack of capacity and held that allowing the application to proceed in light of the clear release language would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The human rights application was held in abeyance pending the appointment of an Estate Trustee for the deceased applicant.

Upon receipt of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a will appointing a legal representative who wished to proceed, and with the respondents declining to make further submissions, the Tribunal lifted the abeyance and directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had remitted the matter to the WSIB, which issued a decision on benefits.

However, the respondent indicated its intention to appeal the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that the related proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were still ongoing and the reasons for deferral remained valid.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on place of origin and citizenship.

On the scheduled hearing date, the respondent requested an adjournment because its counsel had suddenly become ill.

The applicant consented, and the Tribunal granted the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to confirm its legal name, as a corporate search revealed the named respondent did not exist.

Finally, noting the respondent's failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the required documents and provide an explanation for its non-compliance.

The applicant, a disabled single mother, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, family status, or marital status after being denied a volunteer position as a Cub leader with Scouts Canada.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had presented circumstantial evidence and that the respondent possessed most of the relevant information regarding the denial, the Tribunal concluded it was premature to dismiss the application and ordered it to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing two weeks prior to the hearing dates, stating that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre had recently informed her it would not provide representation and she needed time to seek counsel through Legal Aid.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant had ample time since the hearing dates were set in February 2012 to retain counsel, and that her circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on origin and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which was granted.

The respondents subsequently requested to reschedule the hearing and provided alternate dates.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her availability for the alternate dates.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications and directions from the Tribunal, including a warning that the application could be dismissed, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a youth services officer, filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and creed.

His exclusive bargaining agent, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union (OPSEU), filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents filed a response, and given OPSEU's interest in the potential workplace accommodation remedies that could affect other bargaining unit members, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars from the applicant and an opportunity to file an amended Response.

The applicant consented to the relief sought and provided the further particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file any amended Response within three weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer terminated her employment as a reprisal for a previous human rights application she had filed.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release when settling the previous application.

The Tribunal held that bringing an application under section 8 of the Human Rights Code for alleged acts of reprisal that occurred after the release was signed does not constitute an abuse of process, as individuals cannot contract out of their prospective human rights.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the issue of joint and several liability back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal reconsidered the allocation of a $30,000 damages award for a poisoned work environment and discriminatory termination.

The Tribunal found the corporate principals jointly and severally liable with the corporation for $22,500 of the damages, reflecting their role in the termination and their failure to address the poisoned work environment, while the corporation remained solely liable for the remaining $7,500 attributable to the discriminatory conduct of other agents.