HRTO 2013

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

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a union grievance.

After the grievance was withdrawn, the applicant made an untimely request to reactivate the application 18 months later.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an explanation for the delay.

When the applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

After the grievance process concluded, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application, noting the arbitrator had fully resolved the human rights issues.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including a poisoned work environment and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the issues were identical and that the respondent should not be forced to defend itself in parallel proceedings, particularly given an ongoing professional standards investigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, seeking to keep a hot tub on her exclusive use common element for medical treatment.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a final order under s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, permitting the hot tub to remain subject to specific conditions regarding insurance, liability, maintenance, and its eventual removal upon the sale of the unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, receipt of social assistance, and reprisal.

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

The applicant's complaints primarily concerned the termination of her co-op membership and general allegations against the property manager and a former board member.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to link her complaints to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations occurred more than one year prior to the application and were not part of a series of incidents, nor was the delay incurred in good faith.

For the remaining timely allegations, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

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

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIB.

Alternatively, the respondents requested a deferral pending the completion of WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the WSIB decisions did not address the substance of the human rights allegations, such as the failure to accommodate the applicant in her pre-injury position or adverse differential treatment.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the matter, as the ongoing WSIB appeals were not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to file documents or attend a hearing due to illness and not receiving notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the reconsideration request was incurred in good faith due to his recovery from illness and lack of access to mail and email, and that the respondents suffered no substantial prejudice.

The reconsideration request was granted.

The intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, requested an order for the production of documents from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services relating to funding for children with non-physical disabilities from 2005 to date.

The Tribunal found that only the policies and guidelines in effect in 2012, when the applicant sought funding, were arguably relevant.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the 2012 policies and guidelines, along with other agreed-upon documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide available dates for mediation or otherwise contact the Tribunal.

After the applicant failed to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant, an armoured guard of South-Asian descent, alleged that his employer and a supervisor discriminated against him based on race and ethnic origin, and reprised against him for raising human rights concerns.

The allegations centered on a December 2010 incident where the supervisor told him to stop chatting, and a January 2011 incident where the supervisor accused him of urinating on a client's washroom floor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was insufficient evidence to infer that the supervisor's actions were tainted by racial bias.

The reprisal claims were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found no intention to retaliate in the issuance of a verbal warning or in a manager's informal conversation with the applicant.

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

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests from both parties.

The applicant's request for a third extension of time to respond to the respondent's request for particulars was denied, and she was ordered to provide particulars linking her allegations to a Code ground.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application to include specific monetary claims.

Finally, the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing because she had recently retained a representative was denied, as this did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's rules.

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 respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and the production of the applicant's employee health and rehabilitation records in a disability discrimination application.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request for medical records as premature, noting that standard disclosure had not yet occurred, but permitted the respondent to renew the request later if necessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal, claiming the respondents failed to provide sufficient space for bicycles and refused to allow bicycles in elevators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the applicant denied having a disability and failed to link the bicycle storage issue to any protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and goods and services on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant's lengthy and incoherent narrative and submissions did not connect his complaints to any grounds of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the complaints raised no Code issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to prospectively extend the one-year limitation period, amend her application to add new reprisal allegations, and obtain an interim remedy to establish ground rules for the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal held that it cannot prospectively extend the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as good faith delay must be assessed on actual facts.

The request to amend was deferred because the main application was already deferred pending another matter.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to show that the balance of harm favoured the remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.

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

The parties, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission as intervenor, reached minutes of settlement resolving the public interest issues.

The Tribunal issued an interim consent order requiring the employer and union to revise their collective agreements to ensure seniority accrues for up to 36 months for employees on unpaid leave due to a Code-related disability, and to make retroactive seniority adjustments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, reprisal, and association.

The allegations centered on the applicant's return to work after a lengthy absence, including issues with job placement, union representation, and lunchroom accommodation for weight gain.

After the applicant presented his evidence at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or harassment in the respondent's actions and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, reprisal, and discrimination.

The Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, Local 3888, filed a Request to Intervene to address non-monetary remedies and issues related to the collective agreement.

The respondents opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its established practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in applications alleging discrimination in employment.