HRTO 2012

The applicant, a former nurse at a senior's residence, filed an application alleging her employment was terminated because of her race and colour.

The respondent employer requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing the termination was solely due to performance issues.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter will proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or respond to the respondents' adjournment request.

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

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents consented to adding sex and reprisal but objected to sexual orientation and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal granted the request to add sex and reprisal because the supporting facts were in the original application and there was no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to add sexual orientation and sexual harassment because the facts were unrelated to the original application, the request was made approximately two years after the alleged incidents, and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondents.

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

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent, which were returned as unclaimed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction within the specified timeframe.

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

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to both parties.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent attended the hearing.

The adjudicator waited for 50 minutes and, in the absence of any explanation, dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to remove the individual respondents (the President and kitchen manager) and add the corporate employer, Zoe's Bakery Café Ltd., as a respondent.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, finding that the alleged actions occurred in the course of employment, making the corporation vicariously liable under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no compelling reason to maintain the personal respondents, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the corporation and removing the individuals.

The applicant, a former overnight cleaner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and age, claiming he was uniquely required to work weekends.

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

The evidence showed that other non-Black employees in the same role also worked regular weekends, and the applicant had a documented history of absenteeism and tardiness leading to progressive discipline and ultimate termination.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing discrimination or reprisal, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on age and association.

A hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process or because another proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing, and the applications were dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was reserved.

After the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal stating he could not connect to the teleconference.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for Reconsideration to address his non-attendance.

The organization respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a criminal proceeding against the individual respondent for sexual assault.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the human rights proceeding commenced over two years before the criminal proceeding, three days of evidence had already been heard, and the applicant could not advance her human rights claims in the criminal proceeding.

The applicant Carrie-Anne Collin requested to withdraw her human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination.

The respondent Centre consented to the withdrawal on the condition that the applicant waive her right to re-file.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file, the respondent may object at that time.

The remaining applicants were directed to comply with disclosure rules or face dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a rescheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent warning letter.

The applicant's counsel asserted he never received the notice of rescheduled mediation or the warning letter, which were sent by regular mail.

The Tribunal found that while it was troubling that the mail was allegedly not received, the applicant had actively participated in the process prior to the missed mediation.

Concluding that the applicant did not intend to abandon her application, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant the reconsideration request and set aside the dismissal.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the institutional respondent's handling of her internal complaint constituted further acts of discrimination and reprisal, making her application timely.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that it be processed and served on the respondents.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it discriminated against the applicant and ordered it to pay lost wages.

The respondent argued that severance pay and Employment Insurance benefits should have been deducted from the lost wages award, and that the award was unduly punitive.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that EI benefits are not deductible from lost wages awards and that the respondent was improperly attempting to re-argue its case.

The Tribunal did, however, clarify the calculation of the lost wages to properly account for the gross severance payment.

The union, as the certified bargaining agent, requested to intervene in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer.

The union argued that potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights, policies, and training.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, age, association, and reprisal, related to the employer's failure to accommodate her need to care for her son with a disability.

The applicant had also filed concurrent union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal while living at a city-administered family shelter.

The corporate respondent, the City of Ottawa, requested the removal of four personal respondents (city staff).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals since the City accepted responsibility for defending the allegations.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to file an amended Application as previously directed, warning that this could limit his ability to present evidence at the hearing, and narrowed the grounds to disability and reprisal.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a settlement from a previous human rights application.

The applicant failed to identify any specific terms of the settlement that were breached, instead attempting to re-litigate previous claims and expressing dissatisfaction with the settlement amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no legal basis to set aside the settlement or enforce unspecified terms.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that Ontario's visual acuity requirements for driver's licenses constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Ministry of Transportation's Response and to make submissions on jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to file the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a long-term occasional teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin.

He claimed he was unfairly assigned courses he was not qualified to teach, denied support, and ultimately terminated during his probationary period because he is a visible minority from Africa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differently from other teachers hired at the same time and that his termination was due to his inability to manage his classroom, not discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.