HRTO 2012

The applicant, a former part-time usher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age following his termination for excessive absenteeism.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a grievance arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the factual underpinnings of the applicant's absences and concluded that the termination was justified under the collective agreement.

As the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claim, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal's correspondence to the respondent was returned, and the applicant advised that the respondent had moved without a known forwarding address.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current address pursuant to Rule 6.6, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent municipality's rental housing licensing by-law discriminated against low-density rental housing by imposing higher costs than for other types of housing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not specify a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant acknowledged the complaint was novel and did not fall within the Code's enumerated grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness outside the protected grounds.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of previous Tribunal decisions dismissing his human rights application, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias and significant injustice.

The applicant claimed the adjudicator was biased due to a brief prior meeting with respondent counsel and other tangential connections.

The Tribunal applied the established legal test for bias and found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's disagreement with the factual and legal conclusions of the previous decisions did not meet the limited grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a student identified with a developmental disability, sought an interim remedy to be placed back at his neighbouring high school after being out of school for two years.

The respondent school board opposed the request and sought a cross-application directing the applicant's mother to comply with Special Education Tribunal orders placing him in a self-contained class.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, finding the balance of harm did not favour granting an interim remedy contrary to the SET's orders, especially when preliminary issues regarding section 45.1 of the Code remained unresolved.

The respondent's cross-application was also dismissed as the Rules do not provide for respondent requests for interim remedies.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) requested an order for the production of her entire employee file, an adjournment of the hearing, and an extension of time to file her witness list and documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the employee file, finding that the respondent's counsel had confirmed all arguably relevant documents were disclosed and the applicant's mere suspicion of other documents was insufficient.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, noting that the desire for more preparation time does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the request for an extension of time to file materials and directed the applicant to file them immediately.

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

The applicant subsequently failed to update his address and indicated by telephone that he did not wish to pursue the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to state whether he intended to pursue the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a proper Response in Form 2 within the required timeframe, although the personal respondent sent a letter denying wrongdoing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents 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 respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and age after being required to take a mandatory Health Assessment Course following a patient complaint, which she claimed led to her forced retirement.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had pointed to evidence that could link the respondents' actions to the alleged Code grounds, including differential treatment of black and older employees regarding remedial action and accommodation.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to a merits hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age after the respondent declined to hire him for a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations predating March 21, 2010 were untimely and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Regarding the timely allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success as he failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's decision not to hire him to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837, filed a request to intervene to protect the integrity of the collective agreement.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its established practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's human rights application absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, anonymization, and a conversion of the hearing into a mediation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's pending Legal Aid application and knee injury did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the anonymization request, emphasizing the principle of open justice.

The request to convert the hearing into a mediation was denied as the parties had already attended an unsuccessful mediation.

The Tribunal directed that the parties provide oral submissions at the outset of the hearing on whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought production of documents she allegedly deleted from her work computer, which the respondent claimed was the reason for her termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it unclear whether the documents themselves were relevant, but left open the possibility of revisiting the issue at the hearing.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to compile mitigation documents requested by the respondent and raised the issue of whether a prior Employment Standards Officer decision precluded the application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal by his former employer, claiming he was denied several promotional opportunities in favour of younger candidates and subsequently laid off after seeking feedback on how to improve his chances of becoming a manager.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence, beyond mere speculation and the age differences between himself and the successful candidates, that could establish a link between his age and the respondent's decisions.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of establishing a reprisal claim, as the applicant's emails seeking feedback did not assert any Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents raised several preliminary issues, including timeliness, parallel civil actions, prior settlements with releases, and whether certain individual respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day preliminary hearing to address these issues, including whether the application should be dismissed or deferred under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' and reprisal after being terminated by the respondent.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not received a pardon for his criminal conviction, meaning he did not fall within the Code's definition of 'record of offences'.

Furthermore, the applicant did not allege any facts constituting reprisal as defined in the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant and her representative failed to attend the scheduled hearing, having requested an accommodation to participate by telephone only three days prior.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical information to justify the late accommodation request or to establish an inability to attend in person.

As the applicant failed to appear and provide evidence, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing based on disability, claiming the respondents refused to transfer him to a larger apartment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had expressly considered the human rights issues, found a failure to accommodate, and issued a remedial order.

Applying the Supreme Court's principles on finality of litigation, the Tribunal concluded the LTB appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it.