HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and disability, culminating in his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already filed an appeal with the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Act claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings were virtually identical and raised overlapping factual and remedial issues.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the OLRB matter.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to include a claim for lost wages in the amount of $6,767.12.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not raise issues of unfairness to the respondents.

The applicant requested to defer the hearing of his human rights application against the respondent school board pending the outcome of a grievance arbitration between his union and a different school board.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent was not a party to the other proceeding, the subject matters did not clearly overlap, and no remedy could be imposed on the respondent in the other proceeding.

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

The Ontario Provincial Police Association requested intervenor status, which the respondents did not oppose, though they argued the extent of participation should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal granted the intervention request, leaving the scope of participation to the hearing adjudicator.

The respondents also requested dismissal of part of the application under section 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process, citing previous Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal deferred this request to the hearing adjudicator, finding it inefficient to hear it at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and age after her employer failed to reinstate her following a maternity leave.

The applicant also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal for taking maternity leave.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim dealt with substantially the same facts and issues, and that the remedies available under the ESA were similar to those under the Code.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered that the human rights application be deferred pending the final conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant sought to add Controlex Corporation, the landlord of the respondent fitness club, as a respondent to her human rights application regarding accessible parking.

She also sought to amend her application to include new allegations of failure to accommodate occurring after the application was filed, and to amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the allegations could support a Code violation against the landlord and that the amendments would not prejudice the respondents.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant filed the request within 60 days of the WSIAT decision, complying with Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed the respondent to file its response within 28 days.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, other legal proceedings, and housing issues.

The respondents consented to an extension for filing materials but objected to the adjournment, citing a history of multiple adjournments during mediation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, but granted an extension for filing disclosure materials.

The applicant alleged reprisal under the Human Rights Code based on questions asked by the respondent's counsel during his spouse's human rights hearing.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the common law principle of absolute privilege protects statements made by legal counsel and their clients during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the age discrimination claim for delay, the reprisal claim for lack of jurisdiction, and other complaints as unrelated to protected grounds.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the applicant alleged a series of incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the request to dismiss the reprisal claim, as the alleged reprisal was for asserting rights under the Employment Standards Act, not the Human Rights Code.

The request to dismiss the remaining complaints was denied, as they were factual allegations relevant to the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance process initiated under a collective agreement.

All parties filed submissions confirming that the applicant had withdrawn the grievance.

As a result, the Tribunal found no basis to defer the application, ordered that it continue to be processed, and directed the respondent to file a response.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether the applicant's representative, Ben Bishop of Community Functionality Facilitation Inc., was permitted to act as a legal representative.

The representative was not a licensee of the Law Society of Upper Canada and claimed an exemption under By-Law 4.

The Tribunal found that the cited exemption did not apply and that the representative did not meet the criteria for any other exemption allowing unlicensed individuals to provide legal services.

Consequently, the Tribunal removed the representative from the proceeding.

The respondents requested the consolidation of two human rights applications filed by co-workers alleging discrimination based on creed for being denied time off to pray.

The staffing agencies that placed the applicants with the corporate respondent also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding the applications raised identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal also granted the intervention request, finding the staffing agencies had a significant interest and could provide assistance regarding the employment context.

The respondent hospital in a human rights application sought an order requiring the applicant to provide unrestricted consent for its counsel to speak with her treating physician and occupational health manager, and to disclose all medical records related to her disability.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical records from January 1, 2009 onwards.

However, applying common law principles regarding physician-patient confidentiality, the Tribunal refused to order unrestricted access to the treating physician, directing instead that any communication occur with simultaneous disclosure to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the reprisal allegations had already been added to and dealt with in a previous application.

After the applicant failed to respond to a request for clarification regarding his intention to proceed, the Tribunal dismissed the duplicative application.

The applicant, a former Subscriber Advisor, alleged that her employer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of disability and age, culminating in the termination of her employment.

She claimed that the employer's performance management was a pretext for discrimination due to her health issues and that the employer failed to accommodate her ergonomic needs and need for additional washroom breaks.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the performance management or termination to a prohibited ground, concluding that the employer engaged in normal progressive discipline for poor performance.

The Tribunal also found that the employer reasonably accommodated the applicant's ergonomic requests and washroom needs.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant and her counsel requesting mutually agreeable dates to reschedule the hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Neither the applicant nor her counsel responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged racial profiling and harassment by police officers on three occasions.

The respondent requested to dismiss the October 2011 incident for delay and the January 2012 incident for lack of proof.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the October 2011 incident formed part of a series of incidents within the limitation period, and that it was premature to dismiss the January 2012 incident before the hearing and document production process.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance and arbitration proceedings related to the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and those in the grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.