HRTO 2012

The applicant, a 67-year-old machine operator with 35 years of seniority, alleged that upon returning from a lay-off, he was subjected to an unusually heavy workload and harassment by his foreman, leading him to quit.

The respondents did not file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of age discrimination, as the adverse treatment was motivated by a desire to replace him with less-experienced, lower-paid workers and avoid paying severance.

The Tribunal awarded $27,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an injured worker and self-identified atheist, alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and creed after her employer required her to participate in the Salvation Army Kettle Campaign as part of a modified return to work program.

When she objected, the WSIB determined she would lose her loss of earnings benefits if she refused the assignment.

The WSIB requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred pending the applicant's objection to the WSIB Appeals Branch.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer determines the objection, noting significant overlap in the issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability regarding the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's failure to provide pre-hearing disclosure and his requests for an adjournment, further production, and to amend the application.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances, and directed the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations.

The respondent was directed to respond to the production and amendment requests.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding he discriminated against the applicant with respect to housing accommodation based on her receipt of public assistance.

The respondent argued he was denied natural justice because the hearing was not bifurcated as initially directed, and he sought to introduce new character evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the proposed evidence was not new or determinative, and there was no denial of natural justice as the respondent had a full opportunity to address the issue of remedy at the hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the ground of disability following the termination of his employment.

The applicant's union had also filed a group grievance regarding the terminations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

Finding that the issues in the application and the grievance overlapped, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a software developer, alleged workplace discrimination based on race.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested the production of several documents, including source code repository data, co-workers' computer files, telephone histories, and head office emails.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' test and ordered the respondent to produce charts from the source code repository, as they were relevant to the issue of work performance.

The requests for co-workers' computer files and telephone histories were denied for lack of relevance, and the request for emails was deemed moot as they had already been disclosed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation, although his legal representative attended.

The Tribunal sent a letter requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and sex regarding a report prepared by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) during a child custody dispute.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis of absolute privilege.

The Tribunal held that the OCL report was created and filed in the course of judicial proceedings, triggering the common law doctrine of absolute privilege.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police during a search and subsequent criminal charges.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with because the applicant pleaded guilty to a lesser criminal charge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the criminal proceedings only determined whether an offence was committed and did not address the human rights allegations of racial profiling.

Certain untimely allegations were dismissed on consent.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking early production of documents and permission to amend her application to increase the monetary compensation sought by $115,000.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production as premature, noting that the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances were identified.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to amend the application to increase the damages claimed, as the respondents identified no resulting prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently requested to cancel the mediation date due to a car accident, indicating an intention to withdraw and refile.

Despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal to confirm her intentions in writing, the applicant failed to respond.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation and failing to file required pre-hearing materials despite a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the applicant did not comply or provide reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her job was terminated while she was off sick.

The respondent was a First Nations entity, and the employment involved the provision of educational services on a First Nations reserve.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant argued the civil proceeding was taking too long, and the respondents consented to the re-activation.

The Tribunal declined to re-activate the application, finding that the significant overlap in issues and requested remedies between the two proceedings warranted continued deferral despite the parties' consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her following a work-related injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been resolved through a grievance and Minutes of Settlement signed by the applicant and her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, requiring the applicant to file submissions.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and provided the respondent with 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to include events taking place in November 2012, including her resignation.

The respondents did not oppose the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice and noting it would be expeditious to proceed with all allegations concerning the applicant's employment.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, alleging that the applicant had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had never filed a complaint with the Commission.

The request for early dismissal was denied, and the respondents were directed to file a full response.

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

The parties filed a joint request for a consent order under s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a final order requiring the respondents to pay the applicant $4,000 in settlement of the human rights claim, payable in two installments, upon execution of a release and indemnity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate upon his return from sick leave.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the intervenor union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.