HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his work-related injury.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise within 14 days whether he wishes to make oral submissions on the dismissal request, in accordance with section 43(2) of the Code.

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

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against the personal respondent, the President of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discriminatory conduct against the President and that he was named solely because of his position.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success against him and dismissed the application as against the President.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to add individual respondents to her human rights application.

She argued that the individuals needed to be added as parties so they could be compelled to testify.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely repeated previous arguments and that individuals do not need to be respondents to be summoned as witnesses.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status because his employer required a two-year waiting period before his common-law partner could be added to his group benefits, a requirement not imposed on married employees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that section 25(2) of the Human Rights Code, read with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and O. Reg. 286/01, explicitly permits differentiation in health benefit plans based on marital status when providing benefits for an employee's spouse.

The applicant, a nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences against the College of Nurses of Ontario and several individuals.

The allegations stemmed from a Fitness to Practise Committee hearing that resulted in the suspension of her certificate of registration due to a finding of incapacity related to bipolar disorder.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted that adjudicative immunity protected the panel members, opposing counsel were not covered by the Code, and the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the College's actions to discriminatory stereotypes rather than its statutory mandate to assess competence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent employer in 2008 and a subsequent refusal to hire in 2010.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2008 allegations for delay, finding they were filed beyond the one-year time limit and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal deferred the remaining 2010 allegations pending the conclusion of concurrent WSIB/WSIAT proceedings, as both proceedings required a determination of the applicant's level of functional impairment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was ill and unavailable.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing delay and prejudice, and requested that the scheduled dates be used for case management or mediation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the presence of fully briefed counsel is fundamental to hearing fairness and that counsel illness is an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also declined to use the dates for case management, noting that new counsel could not properly handle those issues at this stage.

The applicant filed human rights applications against a university, a union, and several individuals.

One individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the non-responding individual is deemed to have accepted all allegations regarding his conduct and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have waived its right to participate.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled at the applicant's request.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application that appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it on that basis.

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

A mediation session was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal, arguing the application was untimely under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a WSIB decision and a union policy grievance under section 45.1.

The Tribunal found that the application was not plainly untimely, as the applicant alleged recent incidents including a defaced time card and pornography placed in his personnel file.

The Tribunal also held that neither the WSIB decision, which only addressed the lack of a traumatic incident for benefits, nor the policy grievance, which did not address the specific human rights allegations or involve the applicant, appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the University of Windsor and Richard Moon.

Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement, the applicant withdrew all allegations of discrimination.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for October 3, 2012, because her sister was suffering from a life-threatening illness and required significant care and attention.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the sister's serious illness and the family's need to make grave decisions regarding her care constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The request was granted, and the parties were directed to provide new dates within 12 weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated for refusing to submit to a random drug test under a last chance agreement.

The termination had previously been the subject of a labour arbitration, where the arbitrator dismissed the grievance and found the random testing requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola and dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent library subjected him to reprisals by excluding him from the library after he complained about a security guard.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege that the respondent's behaviour was related to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant failed to allege facts coming within the scope of section 8 of the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request to re-activate the Application under Rule 14.3 following the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule the Application for a hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, supported by a letter from his psychologist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal found the medical information sufficient to justify an adjournment based on exceptional circumstances and granted a six-month adjournment, dismissing the respondent's request to dismiss the application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the union took no position but acknowledged the overlap in issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because he would be preoccupied with his daughter commencing university studies.

Although the respondent consented to the request, the Tribunal denied the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a late adjournment request, noting that the hearing date had been set on consent over three months prior.