HRTO 2013

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their Response and for the production of the applicant's passport, travel documents, and telephone records.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response as it was unopposed and caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the requests for document production, finding that the applicant had already admitted to the travel and provided ticket confirmation, and that the respondents failed to establish a nexus between the requested telephone records and any specific fact in dispute.

The applicant requested that her human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration proceeding.

The respondent hospital consented to the deferral, noting there were four outstanding grievances, two of which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed and ordered the application deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being unsuccessful in a job competition.

The successful candidate requested intervenor status because the applicant sought instatement to the position he currently occupies.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the successful candidate to intervene to protect his personal interests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal after being denied a promotion.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's request to strike allegations of incidents occurring outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant could adduce evidence of past incidents as background information to support her reprisal claim, provided the incidents were sufficiently particularized and relevant.

The Tribunal excluded evidence of several unrelated incidents and limited the witness lists for both parties to ensure a fair and expeditious hearing.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the denial of medical marihuana coverage, filed multiple Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal denied the requests relating to matters outside the scope of the original application, deferred a request to amend Ontario Works records to the hearing adjudicator, and dismissed a request for further document production due to a lack of particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, sex, and pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had commenced a concurrent reprisal claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was currently under review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim and the human rights application raised similar issues and overlapping facts regarding pregnancy discrimination.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB matter.

The applicant, who has scleroderma, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by refusing to provide hair washing and styling services at their salon.

The corporate respondent admitted to denying service due to concerns about a potential adverse reaction to chemicals.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents infringed the applicant's right to equal treatment with respect to services because of her disability.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $7,500 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the individual respondents to complete human rights training and post human rights cards in the salon.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging pregnancy discrimination requested an order requiring the respondents to file a detailed witness statement.

The respondents had indicated they intended to rely on their Response as the expected evidence of their sole witness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Response was reasonably detailed and the applicant failed to indicate how it did not address her allegations, consistent with the Tribunal's practice allowing parties to rely on their pleadings if sufficiently detailed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against an individual respondent.

The individual respondent denied being the employer.

After being directed by the Tribunal, the individual respondent confirmed that a numbered company was the actual employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision adding the numbered company as a corporate respondent to the application to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment against her employer and her union.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the union's conduct, including its refusal to pursue a grievance on her behalf, to her disability.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and missed key elements regarding alleged racial discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to identify any compelling or extraordinary circumstances, or new evidence, that would justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal sent correspondence directing the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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.

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 an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, claiming the respondent failed to reply to his requests for information about its insurance carrier in retaliation for a 2006 human rights complaint.

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

The Tribunal found no evidentiary basis linking the respondent's failure to respond to the applicant's disability or his prior complaint.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Ontario Power Generation and several individuals.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's employment at a nuclear generating station falls under federal regulation.

The Tribunal agreed, noting previous decisions confirming that the nuclear power sector is federally regulated for human rights purposes.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, brought a Request for Order seeking production of performance metrics for all employees on the respondent's campaign for June and July 2011.

The respondent argued the request was overly broad and irrelevant, maintaining the applicant was terminated during her probationary period for failing to meet performance metrics.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the metrics arguably relevant to the applicant's ability to challenge the respondent's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination and to assess whether they were a pretext for discrimination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding shared housing.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his disability and the evidence supporting his claims.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and expressing disagreement with the original findings, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on ethnic origin, creed, and reprisal against his former property management company.

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

While the application was found to be timely due to a holiday extension, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that alleged breaches of a prior settlement must be filed under section 45.9, and the remaining allegations of discrimination and reprisal had no reasonable prospect of success as they did not establish a link to Code grounds or meet the legal definition of reprisal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the hearing due to severe mental health issues and because notice was improperly sent to his mother, who was not his legal representative.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of his own.

However, because the reconsideration request was filed more than 30 days after the dismissal decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file an affidavit and medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant, who identified as a brown man from India, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin after the respondent failed to hire him as a transit operator following a conditional offer of employment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's decision not to advance him to the training program to a prohibited Code ground.

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