HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability following her layoff.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of union grievances related to the same layoff.

The grievances were settled through arbitration, resulting in the applicant's reinstatement and monetary compensation for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing and determined that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, including allegations against the personal respondent.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to delay.

He argued that he did not receive the respondent's response and that his delay was caused by post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the respondent's request to dismiss and that the medical evidence provided did not establish that his condition prevented him from filing the application within the one-year statutory time limit.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her corporate employer, La Casbah Restaurant, as a respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that there were allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation against the corporate respondent and that it would be fair to add it to the proceeding.

The request to add the corporate respondent was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status, claiming she was terminated during her pregnancy leave when her employer was sold.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the names of the respondents and add new corporate entities.

The Tribunal reviewed corporate search records and submissions, ordering that the original employer remain a respondent, adding the holding company and the purchaser as respondents, but declining to add an unrelated parent company.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding suspensions and the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Manulife Financial and two individuals.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the application to the respondents, but the mail was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide accurate contact information for the respondents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the applicant's human rights issues and that the arbitral process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement from a previous application.

The respondent indicated that no settlement was ever entered into and the previous application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a copy of any minutes of settlement and the previous application had indeed been dismissed.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no settlement existed.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a parallel proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal found that while there was some overlap between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application, the overlap only pertained to a portion of the allegations.

Given the unknown timeframe for the WSIB appeal and the fact that the human rights application was already scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal declined to defer the application at this time.

The applicant, a driver's helper, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability after he reported two workplace back injuries.

He claimed the employer failed to provide modified duties, reduced his hours, and ultimately terminated his employment because of his injuries and WSIB claims.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, finding that the employer reasonably concluded no light duties were available that met the applicant's strict medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's hours were reduced due to a shortage of work and his employment was terminated because he failed to show up for a scheduled Saturday shift.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race and related grounds.

The respondent requested an order for the production of arguably relevant documents, including the applicants' Ontario School Records (OSRs), Children's Aid Society (CAS) files, and a kinship agreement, as well as a request for particulars regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests, ordering the applicants to either consent to the disclosure of their OSRs or explain why their application should not be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of specific portions of the CAS file and the kinship agreement, and directed the applicants to provide the requested particulars to enable the respondent to know the case it has to meet.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of creed after the respondent asked him to remove a religious avatar he used to identify himself on its website.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the Tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect of success and directed the application to proceed to the next stage.

The applicant, a child with significant disabilities, alleged discrimination based on disability and family status regarding the funding of his treatment and a child protection application seeking Crown wardship.

After the child protection application was withdrawn and funding was approved, the respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application as moot.

The Tribunal found the application was not moot, as there remained a live controversy over whether the past actions were discriminatory and caused the applicant damages, including injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal with respect to his employment.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant had signed a full and final release at the time of his termination.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly covered claims under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant had signed it voluntarily after having a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent legal advice.

The Tribunal held that permitting the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and vocational associations because of disability.

The Tribunal directed the matter to a Summary Hearing to determine if the applicant could prove a link between the respondents' actions and the ground of disability.

At the Summary Hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application against all respondents.

The respondents consented, and the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, closing the file.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing late receipt of the applicant's documents and insufficient time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's reasons did not amount to extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had ample opportunity to prepare and had failed to comply with the Tribunal's own rules regarding the filing of witness statements and documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who has multiple sclerosis, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondent denied OHIP funding for a CCSVI angioplasty procedure.

The respondent had refused funding on the basis that the treatment was experimental, a decision upheld by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the HSARB had appropriately dealt with the issue of whether the treatment was experimental.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not show she was treated differently from any other person seeking funding for an experimental treatment.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate her need for accessible parking.

The disputed parking area is shared with an adjacent condominium corporation.

The adjacent condominium corporation requested intervenor status, which was uncontested.

The Tribunal granted the request for intervenor status and permitted the respondents to amend their Response to address the applicant's amended remedial claims.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned because the applicant failed to file hearing documents or witness lists.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with a previous Case Assessment Direction by confirming she did not intend to rely on any additional documents or witnesses.

The request to dismiss was denied.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to allow a former employee, who now lives in Saskatchewan, to testify by telephone.