HRTO 2012

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that one of the individual respondents was no longer employed by the organizational respondent and could not be reached, proposing his removal unless objected to.

As no party filed submissions objecting to the removal within the specified time, the Tribunal ordered the individual respondent removed from the application.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 power to decide, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a 61-year-old accountant, alleged age discrimination after being hired for a short-term project and let go after six weeks.

He claimed the respondent deliberately hired an older person, believing they would work harder during the probationary period.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that being hired because of age does not constitute adverse treatment, and the applicant's own evidence showed the respondent had a history of high turnover in the position regardless of age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a related union grievance proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance process would not be productive, while the respondents supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped and deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting it was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically that her employer failed to accommodate her return to work following a sexual assault.

The allegations were also the subject of an ongoing WSIB claim and a union grievance.

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

Finding that the subject-matter of the application was the same as the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.

The applicant, represented by his mother as next friend, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent argued the mother lacked authority to proceed because the applicant was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal found the mother had authority to proceed but dismissed the application following a summary hearing, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged incidents to a protected Code ground.

The applicant, a single mother and Registered Practical Nurse, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on family and marital status after she was terminated and failed to secure a Registered Nurse position.

The Tribunal held a Summary Hearing to determine if the Application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on her own suspicions and that she could not demonstrate any reasonably available evidence linking the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

The Application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding regarding unpaid wages and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceeding did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

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

The individual respondents requested that the organizational respondents, Fourth Avenue Medical Centre and Naushad Hoosen Medicine Professional Corporation, be removed as parties, arguing that the former is merely a business style and the latter was incorporated after the events in question.

The applicant conceded that the individual respondents were the only proper parties.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondents removed from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of discrimination, harassment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal were based on speculation and lacked any reasonable prospect of establishing a link to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to consider whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of a related complaint before the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Both parties confirmed that the OIPRD had decided not to proceed with the applicant's complaint.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate and directed that the application proceed.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate his medical condition.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts and issues overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondents and the union supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the Application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC was in the process of determining whether it had jurisdiction over the respondent.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the CHRC's formal decision on jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

After failing to respond to Tribunal communications, failing to comply with disclosure obligations, and failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend a paragraph in their Response regarding statistics related to MA and PhD applications.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment was minor, the proceedings had not yet advanced to a hearing, and the applicant would have the opportunity to file an amended Reply.

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

She subsequently requested an order to add her former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principle that individual respondents should not be added unnecessarily where a corporate respondent is capable of satisfying any remedy and there is no compelling juridical reason to do so.

The Tribunal found no such reason in this case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of employment discrimination.

She argued the decision conflicted with established case law, involved matters of public importance, and was biased.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that disagreement with findings of fact or credibility is insufficient for reconsideration, and that the applicant failed to provide evidence of bias or conflict with established jurisprudence.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a duty of fair representation application and an Occupational Health and Safety Act application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) based on the same facts.

The respondents supported deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the OLRB proceedings dealt with the same facts and issues.