HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with his human rights application after it was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the labour arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and scheduled a preliminary hearing by conference call to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to remove four individually named respondents from a human rights application alleging age and disability discrimination.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found that the organizational respondent admitted vicarious liability and had the ability to remedy any Code infringements.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents from the application.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required 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 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after her deferred pension value was significantly reduced by a funding improvement plan because she was under 50 years old when her employment ended.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The differential treatment based on age in establishing early retirement dates is specifically permitted by the Employment Standards Act and its regulations, and is therefore exempt from the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her former church and its governing bodies, claiming they failed to properly investigate her complaints of spousal abuse and denied her due process in internal appeals.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the denial of her appeals and her sex, and noting that the respondents had no duty to investigate a discrimination complaint that was never made to them.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against certain respondents due to a lack of timeliness.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's near five-year delay in filing her application was not incurred in good faith.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued new facts to explain her delay, stating she had to 'lay low' to regain her emotional footing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the new facts were not determinative and showed a lack of due diligence rather than a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability in respect of housing accommodation, claiming her landlord laughed at her and did all the talking during a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing.

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

Finding no evidence linking the respondent's alleged actions to a Code ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file a grievance regarding his termination and other employment issues after he disclosed his drug use.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the union's failure to act was based on discriminatory factors, as a union's failure to pursue a grievance is not in itself a breach of the Code without a factual foundation linking it to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent company was subject to CCAA proceedings, and the applicant had filed a dispute with the Claims Adjudication Officer appointed by the court, which included allegations of Code violations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the Claims Adjudication Officer's proceeding, given its advanced stage and the overlapping issues.

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 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

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 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending a proceeding before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board involving the respondent.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it, citing a jurisdictional dispute.

The Tribunal found insufficient grounds to justify deferral, as the CIRB proceeding did not involve the applicant or the subject matter of her complaint, and the federal Commission had already declined jurisdiction based on a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The Notice of Intent to Defer was set aside.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged she was discriminatorily dismissed from her employment because of a past workplace injury.

The Tribunal found no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the delay issue and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing criminal proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the criminal proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled human rights hearing because a witness was unavailable due to prior family commitments.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the request was made six months after the hearing notice and outside the 14-day window permitted by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The respondents failed to provide sufficient details or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify the late adjournment request.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early production of her brother's employee file prior to mediation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that early disclosure is only ordered in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the belief that mediation would be more effective with the file was not an exceptional circumstance justifying early production.

The request was denied as premature.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its 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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that 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, aged 65, alleged age discrimination after being denied short-term and long-term disability benefits under his employer's benefit plan.

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

The Tribunal found that section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code and section 44 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 permit disability benefit plans to differentiate based on age for employees aged 65 and older.

As the employer's plan complied with these statutory exemptions, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that a new production manager unfairly raised performance issues with him, which he assumed was due to his age and his identity as the only Native American in the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were based on mere speculation and belief, with no evidence linking the manager's actions to any Code grounds.

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