HRTO 2013

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

Following confirmation that the union grievance was withdrawn, the applicant indicated a wish to proceed with the application.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination regarding condominium common areas and parking, to increase the remedy sought, and to add the condominium's property manager and lawyers as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were related to the original narrative and the amendment would not unduly prejudice the respondent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the proposed respondents, as the applicant failed to provide specific allegations or facts that could support a finding that they violated the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, who receives benefits from the respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding the reduction of his meal allowance and the failure to convert his paper file to electronic form.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised required evidence to be heard and could not be dismissed at this early stage.

The application was permitted to proceed to the next stage in the hearing process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the termination of her internship.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the termination and subsequent communications.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to her disability, specifically chronic fatigue syndrome exacerbated by stress.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that her disability was so debilitating as to prevent her from pursuing her rights within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of his employment in exchange for a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a sophisticated business person, was given time to review the release and freely entered into the agreement without duress or coercion.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on the same issue, which proceeded to arbitration where the respondent conceded liability for a specific period.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the issues raised in the application were substantially the same as those in the grievances, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a wheelchair ramp at the respondents' premises.

The incident occurred in October 2008, but the application was not filed until December 2012.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a court security officer.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the telephone conference call hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal found the application was abandoned and dismissed it as an abuse of process.

The individual respondent in a human rights application brought two requests for an order during proceedings: one to amend her Response, and another to remove herself as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting it was made at an early stage and caused no prejudice.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that because the organizational respondent disputed vicarious liability for the alleged reprisals, removing the individual respondent could leave the applicant without a remedy.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because 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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis as an abuse of process, arguing that the parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement resolving all outstanding employment issues, including human rights matters.

The applicant had refused to sign the subsequent release because she disagreed with its terms.

The Tribunal found that the parties had a joint intention to settle all outstanding issues when they signed the Minutes of Settlement, and the applicant could not void the settlement by refusing to sign the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process for attempting to re-litigate settled matters.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the parties might engage in settlement discussions.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the possibility of settlement discussions does not constitute extraordinary circumstances required to grant an adjournment request made more than 14 days after the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing.

The respondent transit commission requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, which alleged racial discrimination by a streetcar operator.

The applicant claimed the operator made rude comments and washed her hands after the applicant asked a question.

The Tribunal found that the core allegations of discrimination could not be dismissed at a summary hearing, as it was possible an inference of discrimination could be drawn.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's allegation regarding the respondent's failure to retain video evidence, finding no evidence that the failure was unreasonable or discriminatory.

The main allegations were directed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination with respect to services after a cashier at the respondent grocery store referred to him as a "monkey" in Mandarin.

The Tribunal found the applicant's wife's testimony credible that the cashier made the racist comment after the applicant complained about bagging his own groceries.

The Tribunal held that the comment constituted discrimination based on race and colour.

The organizational respondent was found vicariously liable and failed to adequately investigate the applicant's complaint.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, apportioned between the individual and organizational respondents, and ordered human rights training.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal due to delay.

The applicant filed the application outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code for several allegations.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were not part of a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that pursuing a grievance is generally not a valid explanation.

The untimely allegations were dismissed, while the timely allegations were allowed to proceed.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the human rights application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was contractual and involved an entity in the Maldives, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was lacking given the alleged involvement of the respondent's Ottawa head office.

The Tribunal also found that the allegations, if proven, could support an inference of discrimination, and directed the applicant to seek leave if she intended to amend her application to include the social area of employment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed certain allegations of discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual solicitation or advances and disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's communications regarding her pension and long-term disability did not constitute an ongoing series of incidents of discrimination regarding a return to work.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish that her delay in filing was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to call into a scheduled teleconference hearing.

The applicant, a paralegal, claimed he misread the Notice of Hearing and expected to be called.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant should have read the Notice carefully, his emails sent the night before and shortly after the hearing demonstrated an intention to pursue the application.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, finding that the prejudice to the respondents was minimal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide necessary medical information regarding her need for accommodation and when she would be ready to proceed to a hearing, effectively seeking an indefinite stay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and denied the request.