HRTO 2012

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the non-Code related allegations regarding management and governance had no reasonable prospect of success.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred in December 2008, over a year before the application was filed in June 2010.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

In a preliminary motion, the applicant sought production of statistics concerning individuals who received direct deposits prior to October 2012.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the statistical information was not arguably relevant to the remaining issue of whether the applicant's mobility limitations prevented him from effectively accessing his benefits.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant's request for production of file notes from the university's Office of Human Rights and Equity Services and to compel its staff to testify was denied, as the information was not relevant to the core issue of discrimination upon return to work.

The applicant was directed to provide consent for the release of medical information from her summonsed medical witnesses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his environmental allergies, leading to his termination.

The application was filed between two and four years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his attempts to seek redress directly from the respondent.

The Tribunal found that pursuing rights elsewhere does not justify delay and that the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant subsequently requested to amend the application to add the corporate respondent, add the grounds of family status and sex (pregnancy), and clarify remedial claims.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the respondents' argument that the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code due to a prior Employment Standards decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (knee injury).

He claimed that his employer failed to accommodate his physical restrictions and that two 30-day suspensions and his subsequent termination were motivated by his disability.

During the hearing, after the applicant's testimony-in-chief, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the failure to accommodate allegation was untimely and that the applicant failed to establish any connection between his discipline or termination and his disability.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in the operation of a pension plan, specifically regarding the denial of pension credits during a short-term disability leave in 2006.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the alleged discrimination occurred in 2006 and the ongoing financial impact on the applicant's future pension did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The Tribunal also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider the applicant's concerns about potential future discrimination.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

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

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested to amend the application to add the grounds of disability and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add disability, as it was raised in the original application, but denied the addition of sexual harassment due to prejudice to the respondents.

Based on the amended application, the Tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect of success and declined to dismiss the application.

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

After the hearing was rescheduled, an email sent on the applicant's behalf requested that the hearing and application be cancelled.

The Tribunal sought clarification on whether the applicant intended to withdraw the application or seek an adjournment, warning that failure to respond would result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the applicant regarding its jurisdiction to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to correct the date of an alleged incident from April 2004 to April 2001.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response, noting no submissions regarding prejudice were received.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and constructive dismissal after the dental practice where she worked was sold to a new owner.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code infringement and were sufficiently plausible to proceed.

The summary dismissal was denied, and the respondents were directed to file a response.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement, seeking an interim remedy to amend the Minutes of Settlement so that settlement funds would be paid directly to her rather than to her former solicitor in trust.

The respondent opposed the request and sought a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to establish that the Application appeared to have merit or that the remedial objects of the Code would be frustrated by delay.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for a summary hearing to determine if the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

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

After failing to attend a rescheduled mediation session and failing to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that the hearing be held outside Toronto to accommodate his physical disability, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent school board brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking production of documents related to the applicant's involvement with the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the allegations of discrimination and the relationship between the applicant, his child, his ex-partner, and the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding the respondents' attendance policy.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was not supported by a signed declaration as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that an interim remedy was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent refused to rent her an apartment because she and her boyfriend were receiving social assistance (Ontario Works) and that the respondent made discriminatory remarks based on their ethnicity.

The respondent claimed the refusal was because the boyfriend smoked.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence more credible, supported by a CERA caseworker's testimony.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of receipt of social assistance and place of origin/ancestry, and awarded $1,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a teacher with a visual impairment, filed a human rights application against his employer and his union.

The union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against it, arguing it had fairly represented the applicant and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision not to pursue a grievance was based on his disability.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging termination due to disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and disclosure of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide a copy of one document listed in their arguably relevant documents list.

The remainder of the request was dismissed as premature, as the Tribunal's Rules require detailed witness statements and document disclosure 45 days prior to the hearing, and that deadline had not yet passed.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled case conference call regarding their human rights application against the school board.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but issued directions requiring the applicant to explain their absence and confirm their intention to proceed.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests for additional document disclosure, finding the requested documents were either irrelevant to the narrowed scope of the hearing or did not exist, and set the order of witnesses for the upcoming hearing.