HRTO 2013

The applicant, a Black man, alleged that he was racially profiled and subjected to unnecessary aggressive behaviour when he was stopped, questioned, and briefly detained by a police officer investigating a nearby robbery.

The Tribunal found that the officer had reasonable grounds to stop the applicant, who matched the initial description of the suspect and was seen in the vicinity shortly after the robbery.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application, finding no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (a shoulder injury) contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed she was terminated because she was not a 'good fit' and lacked commitment to her warehouse position.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the termination—occurring just an hour and a half after the applicant discussed her injury and restrictions with management—raised a strong inference of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the sudden termination, establishing that the applicant's disability was a factor in her dismissal.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant, a part-time employee who suffered a workplace injury, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the employer reduced her hours of work and subsequently disciplined her.

The employer had initially accommodated the applicant by providing her with more hours in a modified position than another employee with similar restrictions to avoid paying WSIB Loss of Earnings benefits.

The employer later equalized the hours between the two accommodated employees, resulting in a reduction of the applicant's hours.

The Tribunal found that equalizing the hours did not constitute discrimination and that the employer was not required to maintain unnecessary work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that the discipline imposed for attendance policy violations and inappropriate workplace comments was based on legitimate concerns and lacked retaliatory intent.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove an individual respondent, who was their counsel in a prior human rights application, from the current reprisal applications.

The applicant alleged that the opposing counsel instigated criminal charges against him and sought to have his prior application dismissed based on those charges.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that there is no service or employment relationship between opposing counsel and an opposing party that would engage the protection of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, ancestry, and citizenship, more than a year after the alleged incident at a pharmacy.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application on the ground of delay.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because he was pursuing an informal resolution with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that choosing to pursue other proceedings or informal resolution before initiating an application is generally not sufficient to justify a delay under the good faith exception.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after his offer of employment was revoked following his request for parental leave.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his Application to include additional remedies and an allegation that the respondent failed to investigate his complaint.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and raised a new cause of action.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the original Application already contained the factual allegation that no investigation was conducted, and that any prejudice to the respondent was mitigated by the fact that the hearing had already been adjourned for unrelated reasons.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of Law Society discipline proceedings.

The applicant argued that the Law Society hearing had completed, although no decision had been issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no material change in circumstances, as the Law Society process remains outstanding until a decision is rendered and all appeals or reviews are finally determined.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing an overwhelming volume of work in its disaster recovery business due to recent flooding.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that being busy with work does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance required to justify an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, especially given the late notice.

The applicant, a family caregiver for a son with serious mental health issues, alleged discrimination on the basis of gender identity, family status, and association with a person with a disability after she was not invited to apply for membership on a mental health Steering Committee.

The respondents had restricted committee membership to representatives of mental health and addictions service providers, though family members were consulted via focus groups.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the membership criteria to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police services board discriminated against him on the basis of disability and creed, and reprised against him.

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

The Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations, including claims of reprisal and Charter violations, for lack of jurisdiction or lack of evidence connecting the conduct to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the denial of medication while in custody and the use of a racial slur by an officer to proceed to mediation.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination requested the production of arguably relevant documents.

The respondent agreed to produce most documents but asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over certain emails.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide specific information about the withheld documents, including the number of documents, the nature of the privilege claimed, the relationship between sender and receiver, and the dates of creation relative to the Application, to allow the applicant to assess the privilege claims.

The applicant alleged that an employee of the respondent made discriminatory comments based on race, colour, family status, marital status, and reprisal during a conversation about transferring her son to a different childcare centre.

The applicant claimed the employee made stereotypical assumptions about her as a single black woman and suggested she was an unfit mother.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's testimony appeared to be based on her inferences rather than actual words spoken, and dismissed the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO did not address the allegations regarding the failure to provide an insulin injection site at work, nor did the ESO address whether the applicant's disability-related absences in excess of the 10 days permitted by the ESA were a factor in his discipline and termination.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction due to delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that new facts, specifically a change in the law regarding the Social Benefits Tribunal's jurisdiction, justified reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged change in law was not new evidence and would not have altered the conclusion that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and racial harassment by his neighbours, one of whom is a police officer, and by the Police Services Board in its investigation.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in a Police Services Act complaint and a peace bond proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that neither proceeding appropriately dealt with the human rights issues, as the PSA process lacked personal remedies and the peace bond proceeding focused on reasonable fear for safety rather than discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in the area of housing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent tenants association moved his bicycle without permission, which exacerbated his disability, and that this action was a reprisal for his advocacy work educating tenants on their rights.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to communicate any disability-related needs to the respondent and could not establish how moving the bicycle resulted in a disadvantage based on disability.

The Tribunal also found the reprisal allegations to be highly speculative and insufficient to establish that moving the bicycle was intended retaliation for asserting human rights.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the handling of his benefits following a workplace injury.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations primarily concerned the WSIB's application of its own rules and policies, which does not amount to a Code violation.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the police on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

The applicant alleged that police officers knocked hard on his door, entered his apartment, and searched it, causing him to fall out of bed and injure his shoulder.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because receipt of public assistance is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in the social area of services under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior WSIB decision denying the applicant's claim for mental stress benefits had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB only considered entitlement under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and did not address the allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request to direct the applicant to file a new Reply, finding no prejudice or unfairness to the respondent.

The Office of the Employer Adviser (OEA) requested to intervene in a human rights application to make submissions on whether WSIB case managers engage in 'proceedings' within the meaning of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the OEA's request to intervene, limiting its participation to making legal submissions on the interpretation of section 45.1 and the application of doctrines such as issue estoppel and abuse of process.