HRTO 2013

The applicant sought to add her former supervisor, Barbara Schacher, as an individual respondent to her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the allegations related to standard management functions and post-termination conduct outside the employment context.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations against the proposed respondent were central to the application and could support a finding of a Code violation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, providing a doctor's note stating she was distraught over newly received information.

Although the applicant failed to follow the Tribunal's procedural rules regarding consent and alternative dates, the Tribunal granted the adjournment given the medical evidence and directed the parties to schedule new dates within eight to twelve weeks.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The applicant argued that the grievance process was lengthy and his livelihood was at stake.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the reasons provided did not outweigh the primary purpose of deferral, which is to avoid inconsistent decisions on overlapping facts and legal issues.

The applicant, who receives WSIB benefits for a workplace injury, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal by the WSIB and its employees.

The applicant claimed the respondents delayed home renovations, acted abusively, and retaliated against him for seeking assistance from outside agencies.

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

The reprisal allegations related to the enforcement of rights under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, not the Human Rights Code, and the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to his disability.

The respondent requested an order during proceedings compelling the applicant to produce a complete copy of her family physician's medical file and to provide detailed witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a reasonable basis for concern regarding the completeness of the medical file and that the applicant's witness statements were inadequate.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately produce the requested documents and detailed witness statements, failing which the Tribunal may take further steps under Rule 5.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found that the personal respondent sexually harassed her on one occasion, but dismissed her other allegations of harassment, reprisal, and failure to investigate.

The applicant argued the decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence and failed to make necessary credibility assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue her case and had not established any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was unaware of his rights under the Code until informed by a WSIB adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Code, especially since the applicant had pursued WSIB claims but failed to make inquiries about his human rights.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction.

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 age, race, colour, and disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on age, race, and colour as the applicant provided only bald assertions without pointing to evidence linking the respondent's actions to those grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation of discrimination based on disability regarding a specific incident in April 2012 to proceed, finding it timely and sufficiently particularized.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and creed after the respondent school board refused to place him on its supply teacher list because he is not Catholic.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent (the former human resources director) from the application, finding that she was acting in her capacity as an employee and the school board assumed responsibility for her actions.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the applicant's production of documents.

The applicant, a condominium occupant, alleged discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race and/or sex.

She claimed that the condominium corporation and individual respondents failed to address her complaints regarding debris, noise, and vandalism, and that sub-standard materials were used to repair her balcony.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged differential treatment to her race or sex, relying instead on bald assertions and speculation.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal letter warning that the application might be deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order requiring the respondent to produce 2,001 e-mail messages from 2009 to the present containing his name.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it overly broad and noting the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents to the issues in dispute, which arose in early 2012.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to schedule a two-day hearing in Toronto, as the applicant had not provided medical information supporting his previous requests for accommodation regarding the hearing's duration, location, or format.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer terminated her medical benefits while she was on maternity leave.

The respondent business was experiencing financial difficulties and ultimately closed, but it terminated the applicant's benefits a month before the closure because she was on leave and not expected to return.

The Tribunal found this constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, with no special damages awarded due to lack of evidence.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and director of the respondent corporation, alleged discrimination based on family status regarding the scheduling of board meetings.

She sought to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the personal respondent made media statements about her attendance after she filed the application.

The respondents opposed the amendment and requested summary dismissal, arguing there was no employment relationship and no factual basis for the claims.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it related to post-application events and would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for summary dismissal, noting that the factual disputes required a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant, an Aboriginal public servant, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination regarding the appointment of a non-Aboriginal person to a Director position without a job posting.

The application was filed more than two and a half years after the initial appointment and over a year after the applicant suspected discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting to gather evidence or pursuing other internal avenues does not justify a delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a tenant with a disability, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him, harassed him, and engaged in reprisal by knocking on his door to inform him his bicycle was being moved, despite a 'do not disturb' sign and an alleged accommodation agreement requiring written communication.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' actions were reasonable, did not constitute discrimination or harassment, and were not a reprisal for previous human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents brought a request to amend their Response shortly before the scheduled hearing of a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The applicant objected, citing the late timing and arguing the request should be barred by analogy to the one-year limitation period for filing applications under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding that the proposed changes largely provided particulars of matters already raised, could have been included in witness statements, and would not cause substantial prejudice or undue delay to the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings, which involved the same factual background and issues of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceedings overlapped significantly with the application and ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the filing of witness lists, statements, and documents.

As the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions or provide an explanation, the application was dismissed as abandoned.