HRTO 2012

The applicant, a teacher who had previously been disciplined for allegedly having a student sit on his lap, filed a human rights application alleging that a school board poster depicting a student sitting on a teacher's lap constituted indirect discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the poster did not constitute a workplace rule or requirement, nor did the applicant establish any link between the poster's alleged disproportionate impact and a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment over five years.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars before filing its Response, arguing the allegations lacked sufficient specificity regarding dates, details, and identities.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Application provided adequate details, including the department, time period, and names of supervisory and human resources personnel who were allegedly informed of the concerns.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file its Response, noting it could indicate within the Response which specific allegations it could not address.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and the WSIB, relating to the suitability of an accommodated position and loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal denied the employer's premature request for production of the WSIB file.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application, finding significant factual and legal overlap between the application and the concurrent WSIB proceedings.

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

The respondents Manulife, Rau, and Peeler requested that the application against them be dismissed or that Rau and Peeler be removed as parties.

The respondent Acclaim also requested to be removed as a party.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents Rau and Peeler, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties since Manulife assumed liability for their actions.

The requests to dismiss the application against Manulife and Acclaim were deferred to the oral hearing.

The applicant, who is over 80 years old, alleged age discrimination after being quoted a higher automobile insurance premium than his younger daughter for a similar vehicle.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the broker (Atrens-Counsel) does not set rates and that the insurer (Western Assurance) is protected by s. 22 of the Human Rights Code, which permits age-based distinctions in insurance if reasonable and bona fide.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the broker but allowed the claim against the insurer to proceed to a full hearing, finding it was not evident at the preliminary stage that the insurer had no practical alternative to relying on age as a risk factor.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of her long-term disability benefits.

The respondent had previously commenced a civil action against the applicant regarding her entitlement to those same benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the civil litigation.

Finding that the issues in the two proceedings were virtually identical and that proceeding could lead to duplication, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the court proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the original decision was incorrect and reiterated his initial allegations of wrongful dismissal and the respondent's refusal to accept a doctor's note.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case.

The Tribunal concluded that none of the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 26 were met and there was no basis to overturn the original decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a teleconference hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and sex when the respondents denied his request for Special Priority Status for housing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to attend the hearing was due to his own mistake, not a lack of notice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the denial of priority housing status to any prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to promote.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process that raised substantially the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact and law, despite the applicant's concerns about delay in the arbitration process.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

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

A summary hearing was convened to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the start of the hearing, the applicant advised that he wished to withdraw the application.

The application was dismissed on consent.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination by the police on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and association, claiming that police actions led to the loss of his home, livelihood, and marriage.

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

The Tribunal found that there was no basis beyond mere speculation to link the police's conduct to a Code-protected ground, noting reasonable, non-discriminatory explanations for the police's actions.

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

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed three individual respondents at the applicant's request or due to an inability to provide a valid address.

The Tribunal also directed one remaining individual respondent, who had failed to file a response, to do so by a specified date or risk the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to him under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex and age against Health Canada and one of its directors.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed because the issues fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that Health Canada is a federal department and not provincially-regulated.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested a two-week extension of time to file their Response because the Tribunal's website was inaccessible, preventing them from accessing the necessary forms.

The applicant objected to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting its power under Rule 1.7 to lengthen time limits and finding the request appropriate given the website issues and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and Zeynep Onen, alleging discrimination based on race and colour, and reprisal, after the Law Society closed his complaints against two lawyers.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to support a link between the respondents' conduct and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated because she took maternity leave.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the termination was for performance-related reasons and lack of compliance with regulations.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not point to evidence linking her termination to her maternity leave, other than the timing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim regarding a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing.

The respondents attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and emphasized the applicant's responsibility to attend.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the respondent requested the production of the applicant's medical records and WSIB file.

The applicant opposed the use of her WSIB file, citing section 59(6) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, which requires her consent for such use in other proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and mental health were at the core of the dispute regarding accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and WSIB records and to provide her consent for the respondent to refer to the WSIB materials in the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences regarding events from 2004.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 12 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the extraordinary delay of several years, noting that the applicant took no steps to advance the issue before the Commission or the Tribunal during prior proceedings.

The application was dismissed as out of time.