HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had been settled and settlement funds were received, but failed to file the required forms to withdraw or close the file.

The Tribunal closed the file based on the parties' advice that the case had settled.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association membership based on race, disability, age, record of offence, and reprisal.

At the hearing, the applicant was emotionally overwrought and ultimately declined to testify or be cross-examined.

Following the testimony of the applicant's daughter and husband, the respondents argued that a prima facie case had not been established.

The applicant's representative conceded this point, and the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a grievance arbitration.

After the arbitrator upheld the applicant's termination, the respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the applicant initiated an application for judicial review of the arbitration award.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and decided to further defer the human rights application until the judicial review proceedings are finalized, noting that the grievance proceedings are not final while a judicial review is pending.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services because of disability and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding decisions on his workplace injury claim.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant had no evidence of differential treatment or any link between the WSIB's actions and a protected Code ground, and was essentially attempting to appeal WSIB decisions to the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of citizenship and creed, claiming a court registrar obstructed his application for judicial review.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant felt he was treated unfairly, he failed to explain how the alleged mistreatment related to any Code-protected grounds.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

He also alleged his union failed to advance his grievance diligently.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ongoing grievance.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal culminating in termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil action did not seek damages for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the application was not barred by section 34(11) of the Code and was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent employer ceased providing modified work after the WSIB determined his ongoing shoulder injury was not work-related.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB proceeding would determine compensability of the injury, whereas the human rights application specifically alleged discrimination regarding the failure to provide modified work, making them distinct proceedings.

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a grievance arbitration and subsequent settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant's union had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to resolve the grievance, but the applicant refused to sign or agree to its terms.

The Tribunal found that while the arbitration was a 'proceeding', it did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application because the applicant expressly objected to the settlement.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

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

The parties requested an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled two-day hearing because they had reached a settlement in principle, but finalizing it was delayed due to the hospitalization of the respondent's instructing client.

The Tribunal granted a one-day adjournment, ordering that if a settlement form was not filed by the end of the day, the hearing would proceed the following day with mediation-adjudication in the morning and testimony in the afternoon.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on colour, disability, and race.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a concurrent complaint under the Canada Labour Code.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application at this stage, noting that the Canada Labour Code complaint did not cover all allegations.

Due to the respondent's failure to participate, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived its rights and accepted the allegations, and ordered the applicant to provide an update on the concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination.

The respondent consented to the request and filed a second amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, ordering the application and response amended, and directed the applicant to file a consolidated book of pleadings prior to the hearing.

The applicant, a 45-year-old man, was hired for seasonal lawn maintenance work.

After five days, his employment was terminated.

The applicant alleged he was told he was being fired because he was "too old" and that the employer preferred to hire "young punks." The employer denied making these statements, claiming the termination was due to a personality conflict with another employee who refused to work with the applicant.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant, finding that age was at least a factor in the decision to terminate his employment, thereby violating section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $1,640 for lost wages, holding the corporate employer and the individual owner who made the termination decision jointly and severally liable.

The complainant, a racialized taxi driver, alleged that the City of Toronto discriminated against him and other racialized drivers by introducing the Ambassador taxi licence program and ceasing to issue Standard licences.

The complainant argued that Ambassador licences, which are non-transferable and do not permit a second driver, disproportionately disadvantaged racialized men who predominantly hold them.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding that while Ambassador licence owners are predominantly racialized and the licence has disadvantages compared to a Standard licence, the complainant failed to establish a connection between the disadvantage and the prohibited grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin, or place of origin.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding pay equity, which was deferred pending a Pay Equity Commission complaint.

After the Pay Equity Commission found no contravention and closed the complaint, the applicant requested reactivation.

The Tribunal reactivated the application, ordered the respondents to file a response, and scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Pay Equity Commission appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario, which was being appealed to the Health Professionals' Appeals Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal determined that the HPARB proceeding did not raise the same human rights issues, minimizing the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed, conditional on the applicant providing updates on the HPARB appeal.