HRTO 2012

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to clarify the scope of the applicant's human rights complaint after the applicant attempted to introduce new allegations shortly before the hearing.

The applicant sought to add broad claims of systemic discrimination against South Asians and new allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request in part, refusing to allow the late amendment for the systemic discrimination claims due to prejudice and delay.

However, the Tribunal permitted the amendment regarding post-complaint reprisal, finding it inextricably linked to the ongoing employment relationship and not prejudicial to the respondent.

The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.

The applicant, an independent insurance broker, alleged that he was sexually harassed, solicited, and discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and age by the principal of the respondent firm.

He further alleged that he was reprised against and dismissed for resisting these advances.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility and that he actively sought the sexual attention he claimed was harassment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the denial of benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending the resolution of the applicant's ongoing WSIA appeal.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues, noting that the jurisdictional objection would be addressed if the application is brought back on.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on several grounds, including an ongoing court proceeding, a signed release, and that the substance was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions responding to the request to dismiss.

The applicant failed to respond or file submissions.

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

The applicants filed two identical applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications under Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure.

Finding a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability against his employer, McMaster University, and several individuals.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individuals because the university accepted vicarious liability and their actions were not the central focus.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the applicant's direct supervisor, as the allegations against him included harassment and were central to the application.

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 directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The respondents attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend.

Given the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and the applicant's failure to provide evidence, the application was dismissed for non-attendance.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

After multiple scheduling issues, missed deadlines, and denied adjournment requests, a hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2012.

Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned and for abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal rules and directions, and the unexcused failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a black African employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, ethnic origin, and race after he was not promoted to a management position and experienced other workplace changes, including restricted computer access.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions were based on discriminatory grounds.

The respondents provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for the workplace changes and the promotion decision, citing the applicant's resistance to new procedures following corporate mergers and the successful candidate's better adaptability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offenses, specifying 'language' under the latter.

The respondent requested the removal of the personal respondent, arguing his actions were in the course of employment and no direct allegations were made against him.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the personal respondent.

Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the application amended to include 'place of origin' and 'ancestry' to properly capture the applicant's language discrimination claims, subject to any objections from the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately 17 months after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

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

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing other avenues to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable explanation and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately 17 months after the last incident, beyond the one-year time limit in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to attempts to resolve the issues through other avenues, including the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable explanation and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order for the production of a CRA rejection letter and a Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) Report referenced by the applicant in his human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the CHRC documents arguably relevant as the applicant put them in issue.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain and disclose the complete CHRC Report and the CHRC's dismissal letter, noting the CRA rejection letter had already been provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on family status following her termination.

She also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the same employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Defer the application pending the civil action.

The Tribunal found that while there was factual overlap regarding the termination, both proceedings were at an early stage.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application at this time, noting that deferral might become appropriate later if there is a real potential for concurrent decision-making.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it is a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation company and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant conceded that the respondent is federally-regulated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of a related grievance.

The application alleged a failure to accommodate the applicant's needs arising from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance.

Following its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship after the Ministry of the Attorney General advised him it lacked jurisdiction to register criminal charges against police officers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding that the applicant failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination related to a Code-protected ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.