HRTO 2013

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the respondents' request for further particulars and the applicant's request for document disclosure.

The Tribunal refused the respondents' request to dismiss the allegations for lack of particulars, but ordered the applicant to provide specific details regarding her accommodation requests and the alleged harassment based on creed.

The Tribunal also partially granted the applicant's request for disclosure, ordering the respondents to provide information about general labourers and cold room duties in 2009, while denying requests for documents related to earlier injuries and cold room safety as irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by police officers during and after an arrest.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents, arguing the police board accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant requested to add a third officer as a personal respondent and sought document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents, finding their alleged conduct central to the application and potentially subject to individual remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the third officer and ordered the respondents to address outstanding production issues and specific allegations.

The applicant failed to comply with his obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents 45 days prior to the hearing.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application may be dismissed as abandoned if he did not comply, the applicant failed to provide the required materials or request an extension.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested the summary dismissal of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the allegations regarding educational requirements, reprisal, and discrimination based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as they lacked an evidentiary basis linking them to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal found that the allegation of failure to accommodate the applicant's disability was not out of time, as it involved an ongoing duty and recent medical evidence, and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his modified work following a workplace injury was unsuitable and led to further injury and harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding the same injuries and loss of earnings.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues between the two proceedings and noting that the WSIB proceedings were more advanced.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the preliminary basis that it is a federally regulated telecommunications undertaking outside provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the jurisdictional facts were in dispute, the Tribunal ordered an in-person preliminary hearing to receive viva voce evidence and argument on the constitutional issue.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal.

Applying its established approach for such circumstances, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings and to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and family status, claiming she was terminated due to a family member's ill health.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the ESA process constituted a proceeding and that the Employment Standards Officer had already made findings of fact that the applicant had resigned and was not terminated.

Concluding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery and filing of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the materials were not filed, the applicant did not comply or respond to correspondence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim was a wrongful dismissal action seeking common law damages and did not allege any Code breaches or seek human rights remedies.

As the proceedings were not duplicative, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction and dismissed the respondent's request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Small Claims Court judge who dismissed his small claims action.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

Applying the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it had no jurisdiction to hear an application based on the execution of adjudicative duties.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent employer and the union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance based on the same facts and issues was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration processes to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and members of its executive discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they withdrew from her grievance arbitration and made derogatory remarks.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, deferred pending the grievance arbitration, or dismissed for disclosing no prima facie case.

They also sought to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding that the arbitration did not deal with the substance of the human rights complaint, there was no ongoing arbitration on the same facts, the personal respondents' conduct was a central issue, and the prima facie case issue had already been decided.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the applicant's claim for damages.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that particulars of damages are generally not required at this stage of the proceedings.

Under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, disclosure is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, which had not yet occurred, and the respondent failed to identify exceptional circumstances to justify early production.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings regarding the applicant's failure to comply with the disclosure requirements under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately provide the required materials within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

In an interim decision concerning a complex human rights application brought on behalf of temporary foreign workers, the Tribunal resolved several preliminary and case management issues.

The Tribunal clarified that only the sexual harassment claims of specific applicants were continued from the original consolidated proceedings, dismissing attempts to revive or amend other claims due to delay and lack of particularity.

The Tribunal struck portions of the applicant's detailed pleadings relating to previously settled wage claims and general living conditions, while allowing some context evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of materials from a related criminal proceeding against the personal respondent and permitted the use of the preliminary inquiry transcript as sworn testimony.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, perceived disability, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the claims of perceived disability, harassment, poisoned work environment, and reprisal, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the alleged workplace mistreatment to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim to proceed solely regarding an allegation that a manager stated he was only comfortable mentoring younger people.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after the respondent retail store refused to sell him a computer and ignored his complaints.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not link the alleged poor service to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that it does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness or poor customer service absent a nexus to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a retail sales associate, alleged that her employment was terminated in reprisal for filing a human rights application alleging racial discrimination.

Prior to filing her application, the applicant had received a final written warning for workplace misconduct, including working off the clock and violating discount coupon policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached the terms of the final written warning by again working off the clock and handing out unauthorized discount coupons.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was a direct result of these breaches and not a pretext for retaliation.

The reprisal claim was dismissed.