HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex after her employment was terminated while she was eight months pregnant.

Prior to the application, her union had filed a grievance regarding the termination, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of discrimination based on sex or race.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated his previous submissions and failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant's complaints centered on general workplace unfairness, bullying by co-workers, and discipline imposed by the employer, but she could not link these events to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a graduate student, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed (ethical veganism) after her university professors criticized her academic work and the university ultimately prohibited her from pursuing a research topic relating to animal rights.

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

Assuming without deciding that ethical veganism is a creed, the Tribunal found that academic criticism of a student's scholarship does not constitute discrimination simply because it relates to the student's personally-held beliefs.

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

The applicant, a warehouse manager and boom truck operator, alleged that his employment was terminated because of a disability following a workplace fall and subsequent WSIB claim.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a deteriorating relationship, the applicant's insubordination, and a culminating incident where the applicant yelled and swore at the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the dismissal was based entirely on non-Code related reasons, specifically the applicant's attitude, personality conflicts, and a threatening outburst.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel's wife had just delivered a child.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the birth of counsel's child constituted an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to appear on the first scheduled hearing date to explore settlement through mediation.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being terminated following a medical leave of absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination aspect of the claim under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding it had already been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding where an officer concluded the termination was for wilful misconduct.

On the remaining issue of whether the employer's repeated requests for medical information constituted harassment, the Tribunal found the requests were reasonable and necessary to assess the leave and potential accommodation.

The employer's warnings about the consequences of failing to provide the information did not constitute a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to provide a summary of his expected evidence.

At the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars to support his allegations of reprisal or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success regarding the disability allegations, as the alleged threat of demotion occurred during discussions about modified duties and the applicant did not agree to a demotion.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent school board requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the grievance addressed the same issues raised in the application.

Following the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and discriminatorily dismissed him.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the WSIB process was in its early stages and had not addressed the discrimination issues.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the WSIB proceedings.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding inaccessible premises.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had pursued similar allegations against other businesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 53(8) only applies where a previous complaint was filed against the same respondent or a related entity, which was not the case here.

The applicant, a high school teacher, filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate his disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests to add his union (OSSTF) as a respondent and to amend his application to include ongoing accommodation issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations against the union.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend his application to include ongoing accommodation issues, directing him to provide particulars to the respondents.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to include a new reprisal allegation and sought a stay of the proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegation was within its jurisdiction despite the delay, and set a schedule for written submissions and a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters expeditiously.

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

The Tribunal attempted to reschedule a mediation at the respondent's request, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple emails and a formal letter requesting mutually agreeable dates and confirming her intentions.

As the applicant failed to respond by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate him and refused training due to his anticipated retirement.

Prior to filing its Response, the respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to consent to the disclosure of his occupational health files from 2000 to present, arguing the information was necessary to defend the accommodation claims.

The Tribunal found the health files were arguably relevant but limited the temporal scope of the disclosure to January 2010 onwards, aligning with the events described in the application.

The respondent's nurse was ordered to disclose the limited files and the respondent was granted an extension to file its Response.

The applicant's sister filed a Request for Interim Remedy on the applicant's behalf to prevent the execution of an eviction order and the disposal of her possessions while she recovered from childbirth.

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.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the request lacked sufficient information to determine if the underlying human rights application had merit or if the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status, as well as reprisal.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission based on identical factual allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the application on its own initiative under Rule 14.1 pending the conclusion of the federal complaint.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking clarification on whether the applicant alleged that the job description and educational qualifications were discriminatory, and if so, requesting that the applicant's union be added as a respondent.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant confirmed she was not alleging the educational requirements were discriminatory.

Based on this clarification, the parties agreed the request should be denied and the union not added.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed the matter to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to record the hearing to accommodate her learning disability.

The respondents objected and alternatively sought restrictions on the recording's use.

The respondents also requested that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to record the hearing using the Tribunal's equipment, subject to strict confidentiality and usage restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated with respect to liability and the public interest remedies sought by the applicant.