HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code and later requested to withdraw it after the respondent had filed a response.

The respondent objected, requesting that the application be dismissed to ensure finality.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application without terms, noting that if a new application based on the same subject matter is filed in the future, the respondent may object at that time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming her hours were reduced and she was terminated because she was pregnant.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already addressed by the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prior Employment Standards Act complaint for reprisal had appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations regarding the reduction of hours and termination.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and receipt of public assistance against numerous respondents, including federal agencies, municipal officials, hospitals, and shelters.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to Code grounds and named federally regulated entities.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no factual basis connecting the alleged mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination, and confirming that several respondents fell outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment slightly more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to moving abroad and suffering from depression.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not establish incapacity and noted the applicant was completely well by August 2011, leaving the subsequent delay unexplained.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of another Tribunal proceeding that addressed whether the WSIB provided a service within the meaning of the Code.

As that proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal found no basis to continue the deferral and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to identify any preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the remedy requested in her human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that it was filed early in the process before the respondent filed a Response, the respondent did not object or identify any prejudice, and the amendment only pertained to the requested remedy.

The applicant alleged sex discrimination after being prevented from running for the board of the Essex County Soccer Association because she had not resigned her position with a local soccer club.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the respondents' actions to her sex, and that a single incident of being questioned about her soccer knowledge did not amount to a Code violation.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on marital status and sex (pregnancy) after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the marital status claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant was treated the same regarding shift scheduling before and after her marriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the pregnancy discrimination claim under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that an Employment Standards Officer had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegation in a prior proceeding under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing his requests to transfer to a ground floor unit in 2008 and 2010.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of redacted tenancy agreements and waiting lists.

The Tribunal declined to order production, accepting the respondents' representation that the documents had already been produced or no longer existed.

The Tribunal also noted that the 2008 allegations appeared to be outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on timeliness prior to the hearing.

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

The respondent was previously deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the application was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, the respondents requested production of the applicant's income documentation.

The applicant claimed special damages of $57,005 for lost wages, asserting an inability to work since her termination.

During cross-examination, evidence emerged of potential income from volunteer honourariums, cleaning services, and Ontario Works.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the assessment of special damages and the applicant's claimed inability to work, and ordered their production.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability after his short-term disability benefits were terminated by the respondent.

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

The Tribunal found that the dispute was simply about entitlement to benefits and whether the applicant was unable to work, not about differential treatment based on disability.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, the applicant's supervisor, from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions, which were alleged to have occurred within the scope of his employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party, noting the central allegation involved a remark by another employee not named as a party.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and race after his hunting rifles were retained and his firearms license was revoked.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the continued retention of his rifles constituted a continuing contravention of the Code.

The Tribunal held that the retention of the firearms was a single incident with continuing effects, not a series of incidents, and therefore the application was untimely.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith to determine if an extension of the time limit should be granted.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated due to disability and age discrimination, requested the production of a list of employees, performance reviews of other drivers, and specific emails.

The respondents opposed the request, citing privacy, relevance, and overbreadth.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' test and ordered the production of the requested documents, subject to limitations to protect privacy and ensure relevance.

The applicant filed an application under 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, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought leave to intervene in an application challenging the validity of certain sections of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the intervention request.

The Tribunal also requested written submissions from all parties on the Attorney General's request to defer the application pending a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to add the ground of reprisal, noting she was unrepresented when she filed the application but had included the essential facts.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to comply immediately with their disclosure obligations regarding documents and witnesses.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

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

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed grievances on behalf of the applicant.

The respondents requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of the outstanding grievances before deciding on the deferral request.