HRTO 2012

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2713, filed a Request to Intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that the extent of its participation would be determined by the presiding Member at the hearing.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

A hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating he wished to withdraw his application, and he subsequently failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal noted that an application cannot be unilaterally withdrawn at that stage without permission, and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because of her intention to take maternity leave.

The respondent requested the Tribunal defer the application because an Employment Standards claim regarding the same allegations was ongoing before the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal found that the factual circumstances and remedial claims in both proceedings overlapped significantly.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race and colour.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already initiated a workplace grievance raising the exact same issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, and concluded that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings and duplication of resources.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services brought several interim requests.

She sought to amend her application to clarify allegations regarding a mobile crisis unit visit, requested an advance ruling on the admissibility of third-party medical records, and sought production of police records.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to the late stage of the hearing, declined to rule on the medical records in advance of oral evidence, and denied the production requests for police records due to lack of notice, lateness, and speculative relevance.

The union requested intervenor status in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer alleging discrimination based on disability and sex.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as remedies could impact the union and affect a related grievance.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, allowing it to receive materials, attend mediation, and participate in the hearing to an extent to be determined by the presiding adjudicator.

The applicant alleged harassment and discrimination on the basis of disability after her employer allegedly failed to accommodate her return to work from a medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the harassment allegations, finding no connection to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal found that the employer breached the procedural duty to accommodate by failing to meaningfully respond to the applicant's physician's specific recommendation for a call centre position.

The substantive duty to accommodate was not breached as no suitable positions were available.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in respect of goods, services, and facilities on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to lack specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant did not respond to the NOID.

However, the Tribunal found that it was not 'plain and obvious' that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be served on the respondents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the employment relationship is federally regulated, as the applicant provided security services at an airport.

The Tribunal found that it lacked sufficient factual information regarding the applicant's specific job duties and their connection to the core federal undertaking of aeronautics to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The request to dismiss was denied at this stage, and the respondent was directed to file a response to the application.

The applicant, a manager at a provincial jail, alleged that the respondent union president discriminated against and harassed her by posting sexist comments about her on a union blog.

The Tribunal found that the blog posts did not constitute harassment 'in the workplace' under s. 5(2) of the Human Rights Code because the blog was directed at union members and not accessed at work.

The Tribunal also found no discrimination with respect to employment under s. 5(1), balancing the applicant's Code rights against the union's Charter rights to freedom of expression and association regarding labour-management issues.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted an additional 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The respondents subsequently informed the Tribunal that the applicant had died.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's Estate Trustee to confirm their status and intention to continue the application.

When the Estate Trustee failed to respond by the deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal with respect to services after the respondent denied his application for a firearms license renewal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it plain and obvious that the matter was beyond its jurisdiction.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to provide documentation specifying the nature of the PSA investigation and the reasons for its dismissal, and therefore did not meet their onus to show that the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the subject matter.

The applicants, individuals with intellectual disabilities residing in group homes, filed human rights complaints against the respondent unions.

They alleged that legal picketing by the unions at their group homes during lawful strikes constituted discrimination with respect to services and occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal found that the Code does not govern the relationship between a union and those using services at a place the union's members are picketing, as the union members were acting as union members rather than service providers.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding workplace accommodation and return to work.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances raising the exact same issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievances, raising a real concern of parallel proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the social area of contracts under section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents had claimed in their responses that the applicant was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the lack of new factual allegations, and the absence of prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request to amend the application.

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

The original application was dismissed after the applicant failed to file submissions explaining why his allegations of racial harassment were timely under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration but provided no reasons for the request.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to reconsider the decision and dismissed the request.

The parties made a joint request to remove the individual respondent as a party to the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability (menorrhagia) when it disciplined her and ultimately terminated her employment.

The termination followed a breach of a Last Chance Agreement when the applicant went off her designated bus route.

At the conclusion of the applicant's case during the hearing, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any causal connection between her alleged disability and the work-related misconduct for which she was disciplined and terminated.

The application was dismissed.