HRTO 2012

The respondent City of Toronto brought a request to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related judicial review concerning the closure of a dog off-leash area.

The applicant alleged that the City's decision to close the park relied on discriminatory considerations related to his disability.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the judicial review did not allege discrimination and did not seek the same remedies, meaning there was no significant danger of inconsistent findings of fact or law at this stage.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a re-opened hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The applicant had filed an amended application at the LTB seeking compensation for the respondent's alleged failure to accommodate her environmental sensitivities, which overlapped with the facts and issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding a clear overlap between the proceedings and noting that the LTB hearing was scheduled to take place in less than a month.

The corporate respondent and its manager brought a request to remove the manager as a personal respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the manager as a personal respondent, as there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability or ability to remedy any alleged infringement.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to file their documents and witness materials, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an earlier decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the discrimination was ongoing because she was still unable to receive a full pension or purchase pension credits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue her case and introduce new arguments that contradicted her earlier submissions.

Finding no new facts or compelling circumstances to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5, the Tribunal dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory pension plan provisions.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ongoing written communications and advocacy between his counsel and the respondent prior to filing.

The Tribunal held that, consistent with established jurisprudence, pursuing rights in another forum or engaging in ongoing negotiations does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ruled that the applicant's counsel could continue to act for him, as the correspondence would likely not be relevant to outstanding issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, noting an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the WSIB process.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed the union to file submissions regarding the respondent's request to dismiss or defer.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the directions or provide the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and age against the school board and her former principal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address the timeliness of pre-retirement allegations and whether the timely post-retirement allegation had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the pre-retirement allegations were out of time and did not form a series of incidents with the post-retirement refusal to provide a reference.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegation, as the applicant could not point to evidence linking the refusal to a prohibited ground beyond mere speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following the termination of his employment.

The applicant's union, which was representing him in an ongoing grievance arbitration regarding the same termination, requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration, noting that the arbitrator was seized with the central issue of the termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

The applicant's union, which was pursuing a grievance regarding the termination, requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing grievance arbitration, noting that the central issue of the termination was already before an arbitrator.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination after his employment was terminated.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance regarding the termination, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the arbitration and whether to grant the union intervenor status.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding it appropriate to wait until the central issue of termination was resolved at arbitration.

The union's request to intervene was also granted.

The applicant, a former human resources advisor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

He claimed the respondents failed to accommodate his Tourette's Syndrome and ADD, subjected him to a poisoned work environment, terminated his employment for discriminatory reasons, and retaliated against him in subsequent job competitions.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications in their entirety, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the respondents were aware of his need for accommodation or that he cooperated in the process.

The Tribunal also found that the alleged offensive comments did not create a poisoned work environment, and that the respondents provided persuasive, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating his employment and not selecting him for subsequent job interviews.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

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

The applicant explained the delay by stating he initially filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which informed him it lacked jurisdiction and directed him to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that even accounting for a postal strike, the applicant had sufficient time to file within the one-year limitation period but failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a work-related knee injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing claim for benefits at the WSIB regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the factors favouring deferral, including avoiding duplicate proceedings and inconsistent findings, outweighed the factors against deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

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

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the applicant had also filed a grievance relating to her termination.

The applicant did not file submissions opposing the deferral.

Given the significant overlap in subject matter between the grievance and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued she was experiencing depression when she signed the release and that her status as a human resources professional should not imply she understood the release.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the depression claim was not raised earlier and the request was an attempt to re-argue the case.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached an oral settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications relating to the breach of settlement, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code because there was no written and signed agreement.

Regarding a third application filed on behalf of a minor, the Tribunal directed the parties to file further materials to determine whether the applicant retained authority to act as a next friend given the minor was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding denial of accommodations, modified work, and bumping rights.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, as it was representing the applicant in an ongoing grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also deferred the application pending the conclusion of the related grievance process, noting that deferral is the general practice when an ongoing grievance addresses the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment due to reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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