HRTO 2012

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the allegations had been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider her evidence, violated procedural fairness by proceeding in writing, and failed to provide reasonable notice.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not provide new evidence, had been given the option to proceed orally but chose to proceed in writing, and failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedures.

The applicant, an aboriginal man with supervised access to his children, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board regarding his access to information about his children and his ability to attend school events.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination or establishing the elements of reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment by her employer and failure to investigate by her union between 2004 and 2007, as well as a harassing voicemail received in February 2009.

The respondents requested dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found that the gap of more than one year between 2007 and 2009 disrupted any 'series of incidents.' Furthermore, the applicant's medical evidence did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application in a timely manner, given her participation in other complex activities during that period.

The 2004-2007 allegations against both respondents were dismissed as untimely.

However, the timely 2009 voicemail allegation against the employer was permitted to proceed.

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

After the hearing was rescheduled at the respondent's request, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to set a new date.

The applicant failed to respond to emails, her phone was disconnected, and mail was returned.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to provide contact information would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and union.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to a medical crisis involving her dependent son, who has special needs.

The crisis was precipitated by a fire at his school.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the unexpected medical crisis constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction, and granted the request.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by a high-risk pregnancy, bed rest, and subsequent childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue, leaving the respondents the opportunity to make further submissions on the issue of delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming ECE Distribution Ltd. and an individual as respondents.

ECE Distribution Ltd. filed a response denying an employment relationship, claiming the applicant was an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc. The Tribunal previously added Cooney Promotions Inc. as a respondent and requested submissions on whether ECE Distribution Ltd. should be removed.

Based on the applicant's uncontradicted submissions showing overlapping corporate directors, shared addresses, and email signatures, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of an employment-related relationship to retain ECE Distribution Ltd. as a respondent at this preliminary stage.

The applicant alleged that she was terminated from her employment as a product scanner because of her disability, having been fired immediately upon returning from a nine-week medical leave.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to a significant decline in business and the applicant's lack of multi-tasking skills compared to other employees.

The Tribunal found the respondent's explanation vague and internally inconsistent, concluding that the applicant's medical leave was a factor in her selection for termination.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost benefits, and ordered human rights training for management.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and age.

The respondent James Quinn failed to file a Response to the Application, despite a previous Interim Decision directing him to do so and warning him of the consequences.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and deemed the respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

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 noting the failure to respond and warning that the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested that it be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondents consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application on consent, noting that the respondents' request to remove certain parties would be considered if and when the application is reactivated.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant acknowledged that the grievance proceeding was still ongoing and a hearing was scheduled.

The respondent opposed the reactivation.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because, under Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, an application deferred pending another legal proceeding cannot be reactivated until that other proceeding has concluded.

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

The respondent later advised the Tribunal that the parties had resolved the dispute.

The Tribunal sought written confirmation from the applicant, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, and age.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to determine whether the application alleged a continuing breach, the date of the last incident, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and whether substantial prejudice would result from the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents, who produce a television show broadcast nationally.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondents appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant submitted that the show is privately funded and produced by an Ontario company, and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission advised him the matter falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed the respondents to address the issue in their Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on creed nearly 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 mental illness and his lawyer's failure to act promptly.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating his mental health prevented him from pursuing his rights, and that the lawyer's delay occurred after the limitation period expired.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal in relation to housing against her brother, who owned the property where she held a life interest.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the Code's housing provisions did not apply to their relationship as he was not a conventional landlord.

The Tribunal found that the Code does not explicitly limit its application to conventional landlord-tenant relationships and that the applicant's allegations required a full hearing to resolve credibility issues.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to pursue a grievance regarding his workplace accommodation.

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

The Tribunal found that a union's failure to pursue a grievance is not in itself evidence of discrimination, and the applicant provided no evidence that the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and reprisal after an academic disagreement with his instructor over course materials and a subsequent plagiarism allegation.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds and concluded that the respondent's request for a meeting and instruction not to attend class did not constitute a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.