HRTO 2012

The applicant, an assistant store manager, alleged discrimination based on family status, disability, and reprisal after being accused of taking store merchandise.

The applicant claimed the loss prevention representative targeted her because she was a single mother.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the family status and reprisal claims required findings of fact and credibility, allowing them to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the disability claim, as the applicant alleged the respondents' actions caused her illness, rather than alleging she was treated differently because of a disability.

The applicant, a former condominium superintendent, alleged his employment was terminated because of a mental disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success and that the matter had already been dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and an Employment Standards Officer (ESO).

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable prospect of establishing that his mental disability contributed to the conduct leading to his dismissal and that the respondent was aware of it.

The Tribunal also held that neither the LTB nor the ESO proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after his employment was terminated following the deferral of his initial application.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance and arbitration proceeding regarding the termination.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, noting that labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and deferral avoids duplication of proceedings.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant provided incorrect contact information for the respondent and failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for accurate information.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, explained that he misheard the respondent's name and had attempted to fax the correct information to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted that the failure to provide the information was inadvertent and granted the request for reconsideration, finding that factors existed that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex and pregnancy following the termination of her employment.

The application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant explained the delay was due to initially filing with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which later determined it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application lacked a good faith explanation for the delay and allowed the application to proceed.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the personal respondent, a clinical manager, from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the motion, noting that the corporate respondent accepted full responsibility for the alleged conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party.

The applicant, a parent with a communication disability, filed a human rights application against the school board alleging discrimination for refusing to allow email as a regular means of communication with teachers.

The applicant brought a request to add the Ministry of Education and the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) as respondents, arguing they were necessary to achieve a public interest remedy regarding a formal email policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations of Code violations against the proposed respondents and concluding their addition would unfairly complicate the proceeding.

ETFO was granted affected person status.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance process.

The applicant provided evidence that his grievance was settled.

The respondent acknowledged receipt of the request but did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the concurrent grievance process had concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after suffering a workplace back injury.

She also had an ongoing WSIB claim regarding her return to work and accommodation.

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

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the WSIB claim and the human rights application were triggered by the same facts and there was a clear overlap between the issues, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability-related needs, leading to his termination.

He subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of his application pending the conclusion of a concurrent proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), which was reconsidering his entitlement to benefits and re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the clear overlap in facts, issues, and remedies, and to avoid the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, record of offences, and reprisal.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace accident, a disciplinary letter, and layoffs and recalls either did not amount to a Code violation, were untimely, or lacked any evidence connecting the events to a prohibited ground.

The Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that granted her application in part but denied her request for $90,000 in lost wages.

The applicant argued that her counsel had failed to provide wage loss information at the original hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the original decision denied lost wages not merely for lack of income information, but because no position within the applicant's restrictions was available during the material time.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as an attempt to re-argue a position already considered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding advancement and promotion.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted given its representation of the applicant in ongoing related grievances.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its normal practice to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with authority to resolve them.

The applicant, an eight-year-old student with disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services and reprisal.

The applicant sought interim remedies requiring the respondent school board to provide a full-time educational assistant and to contact the applicant's mother in emergencies, despite an existing trespass notice and communication ban.

The Tribunal denied the request for a full-time educational assistant at this time, noting an imminent Identification, Placement and Review Committee meeting, but granted the request requiring the respondent to contact the mother in emergencies.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to the urgent circumstances affecting the student's education and health.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated while she was on pregnancy and parental leave.

She also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination.

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

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal found that the circumstances giving rise to both proceedings were the same, creating a risk of concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the ESA proceeding is concluded or abandoned.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing related grievance arbitration based on the same facts.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, inconsistent findings, and duplication of resources.

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

The Tribunal's initial Notice of Application was sent to an incorrect postal code, prompting a re-issued Notice with an extended deadline.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the new deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as out of time.

The original application alleged discriminatory denial of a criminal trial transcript from 2001.

The applicant argued that a recent Ontario Review Board disposition constituted new evidence and that he was denied an oral hearing on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination did not extend the limitation period, and that the Tribunal was permitted to determine jurisdictional issues based solely on written submissions.