HRTO 2012

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

The respondents requested to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act claim had already dealt with the substance of the complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding termination pay did not address the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add an organizational respondent, leaving the factual dispute about employment status to be determined at the hearing.

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

He claimed he was laid off and later terminated due to a back injury, and that he was subjected to ageist comments by co-workers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

There was no evidence connecting his layoff or termination to his disability, as the termination arose from a dispute over his rate of pay.

Regarding the ageist comments, the Tribunal noted that the applicant participated in the workplace banter, did not complain to management, and the employer took appropriate steps to address the issue once notified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by security guards at the respondent's shopping mall on two separate occasions.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

As neither party opposed and there were common issues of fact and law, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against the Toronto Police Services Board and related respondents.

The applicant requested that the applications be consolidated.

The respondents did not oppose consolidation but raised an issue regarding disclosure of the applicant's medical files, which was subsequently resolved.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, expense, and the risk of inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to attend the scheduled hearing and to clarify the outstanding remedy sought, as the respondent had already agreed to provide a sign language interpreter.

The applicant was warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a civil action against her long-term disability insurer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding minimal overlap between the proceedings.

The civil action involved different parties and distinct legal issues regarding disability benefits eligibility, whereas the human rights application focused on allegations of discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal by the employer.

The respondent requested an adjournment on the morning of the scheduled hearing due to the sudden and unexpected illness of its counsel.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the sudden illness, and ordered that the matter be rescheduled as soon as possible on a peremptory basis to the respondent.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of documents relating to cigarette and drug smoke in the stairwells of her building, as well as police records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the requested documents that were in their possession and to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant also requested that her name be anonymized due to the sensitive nature of her mental health evidence.

The Tribunal denied the anonymization request, finding that the evidence of anxiety and PTSD did not justify a departure from the open justice principle.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications following a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely disagreed with the decision and reiterated previous arguments, failing to present any valid basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application as untimely, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to consider the timeliness issue before proceeding to mediation.

The scheduled mediation was cancelled, and the applicant was directed to file submissions explaining any good faith reasons for the delay.

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 s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a request to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding the same matter.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the request to dismiss, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application, which originally alleged age discrimination, to add allegations of reprisal (termination of employment) and sexual and racial harassment by co-workers.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the reprisal allegation, finding it linked to the original application and not prejudicial to the respondent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the sexual and racial harassment allegations, as they involved different grounds, perpetrators, and time periods, and would unduly broaden the scope of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated while she was on medical leave.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a gratuitous severance payment.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant understood the release, was not under duress, and had made a considered decision to accept the severance package.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The respondents filed Requests for Order seeking particulars, production of documents, and the removal of the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant failed to respond to the requests.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of the alleged discriminatory conduct and to file a Reply.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of removing the individual respondents until the particulars were received, and ordered both parties to confirm they had exchanged all arguably relevant documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the WSIB and his employer, Expertech.

The WSIB and Expertech requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the WSIB did not raise an arguable claim of discrimination, as there was no evidence of unequal treatment based on disability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim against Expertech, finding it was an abuse of process and barred under section 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling the matters and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had already determined the claim was barred by that release.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to fully comply with orders to produce her WSIB file and other medical documents.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had not completely complied with the production orders, her conduct did not amount to an abuse of process warranting dismissal.

The Tribunal noted that the missing post-termination medical documents primarily related to the issue of remedy rather than the central issue of whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant prior to termination.

Following a final decision allowing the application and ordering remedies, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Janus Joan (1996) Inc. as a respondent, arguing it was a successor organization.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it procedurally unfair to add a party and make it liable based on a hearing of which it had no notice and in which it did not participate.

The proposed respondent's request for costs was also dismissed as costs are not available in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the apprehension of her newborn child.

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

The Tribunal found that while the Society's actions constituted 'services' under the Human Rights Code, the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the Society's conduct to the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

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