HRTO 2013

The respondent police officers brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as individual respondents from a human rights application alleging racial profiling.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one officer because the allegations against him had previously been dismissed for delay.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the remaining two officers, finding that their individual conduct during the applicant's arrest remained a central issue in the proceeding.

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

The applicant claimed he was terminated after fainting at work following a public reprimand.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to long-standing performance issues, culminating in a poor maintenance audit on the day of the fainting incident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the fainting incident or any perceived disability was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against her with respect to services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, race, family status, and disability, and reprised against her for claiming her human rights.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the WSIB's actions to a protected ground, as the WSIB's actions were related to perceived inconsistencies in her claims rather than discriminatory intent.

The reprisal allegations and the request to add Sears Canada as a respondent were also dismissed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant alleged that her employer, the respondent, sexually harassed and assaulted her in the workplace, leading her to leave her employment.

The respondent did not dispute the allegations and had previously pled guilty to criminal harassment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent violated the applicant's right to be free from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $29,120 for lost wages and $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, specifically regarding discipline and dismissal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a workplace grievance seeking compensation and reinstatement for the same alleged unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking particulars of the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the application lacked specific facts linking the respondents' actions to the alleged Code grounds.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide complete particulars of her allegations within 14 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The application had been previously deferred pending a WSIB appeal.

After the WSIB issued a decision, the applicant requested to re-activate the application, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent then requested to defer the application again, arguing there were still outstanding WSIB issues.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request, finding that the WSIB had completed its inquiries and there were no likely outstanding decisions.

The application was ordered to be scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to provide updated contact information to the respondents or respond to Tribunal directions.

Despite multiple warnings that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant did not reply.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities after attempting to get permission to modify his property in a heritage conservation district.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the retrial of charges against the applicant under the Ontario Heritage Act for paving his backyard without a permit.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that the retrial was scheduled for a date that had already passed, meaning there was no concurrent proceeding to defer to.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing sought to add her condominium corporation's property manager and lawyers as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the property manager, finding the applicant made allegations that could support a Code violation regarding day-to-day management.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the lawyers, noting that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party does not fall within the social areas covered by the Code.

The applicant, an employee on inactive status due to disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal against his employer and union.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim regarding the denial of funding for a residential treatment program, finding no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's previous human rights applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination claim regarding health care contributions, as section 15 of the Code permits preferential treatment for persons aged 65 or older.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the claim that denying a signing bonus to an employee not actively working due to disability was discriminatory, as the compensation scheme treated all non-working employees equally.

The applicant, who failed to meet the hearing acuity standard required to become a police constable, brought an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, ethnic origin, and age.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested the production of his complete file from Applicant Testing Services Inc., including results from other pre-interview tests.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to the central issue of whether the hearing standards under the Constable Selection System are a bona fide occupational requirement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on pregnancy and family status.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the ESA proceedings.

Despite the applicant's request to proceed, the Tribunal deferred the application to prevent concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the ESA complaint was filed first and a meeting was already scheduled.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent car club discriminated against her by requiring the use of CB radios on certain tours and failing to accommodate her disability.

She also alleged reprisal after her access to the club's online forum was suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the policy did not differentially impact the applicant as she was always a passenger and her husband could operate the radio.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to collaborate in the accommodation process by not exploring options to install a speaker near her functioning ear.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed, as the suspension was intended to manage a disruptive online discussion rather than retaliate against the applicant for asserting her Code rights.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions identifying specific acts of discrimination, as the Application failed to do so.

Despite being granted multiple extensions of time, the applicant failed to provide the requested submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions identifying specific acts of discrimination, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

Despite being granted multiple extensions of time, the applicant failed to provide the requested submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a veterinarian, filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Veterinarians of Ontario discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed during ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant alleged selective prosecution and that the College's Discipline Committee wrongfully prevented him from raising discrimination issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the Discipline Committee's evidentiary and procedural rulings were protected by adjudicative immunity and the doctrine of collateral attack.

Furthermore, the applicant's allegations regarding the Complaints Committee's referral had already been dismissed in a previous application, making re-litigation an abuse of process.

The applicants filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondent school board.

Following a case management conference call, the Tribunal directed the applicants to produce certain documents, including Ontario School Records and Children's Aid Society files, and to provide particulars of their allegations.

The applicants failed to comply with any of the Tribunal's directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants had abandoned their application and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that her previous representative withdrew his services and she had recently retained a new representative, requiring more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining a new representative shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant, acting as next friend for his child, filed a human rights application against the Office of the Children's Lawyer and its clinical investigator regarding a custody report.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing to bring the application because he did not have custody of the child.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the contact information of the child's custodial mother so she could be given notice and make submissions on the standing issue, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.