HRTO 2013

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the request to dismiss, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and ancestry after the respondent refused to rent him a hotel room because he had children.

The respondent requested a five-month extension of time to file its Response, citing renovations and peak season busyness, as well as particulars regarding two other incidents mentioned in the application.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding that mere inconvenience does not justify a delay, and ordered the Response to be filed within 14 days.

The request for particulars was also denied because the other incidents were only mentioned to describe the effect of the alleged discrimination on the applicant and were not relevant to the Response.

The applicant, a Roman Catholic chaplain, was terminated by the respondent hospital for disclosing confidential patient information to third parties.

The applicant alleged that his termination was discriminatory on the basis of creed, arguing that his faith required him to disclose a patient's desire to commit suicide.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was due to the applicant disclosing the information to an unregulated third party outside the circle of care, not because of his creed, as hospital policy and privacy legislation permitted disclosure through proper channels to prevent imminent danger.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directing the applicant to file and deliver documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring compliance within seven days, warning that failure to do so might result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not comply with the direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former student of the respondent school board, alleged discrimination based on perceived disability.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to provide requested educational supports and services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the Code does not impose a free-standing duty to accommodate needs unrelated to a Code ground.

Since the applicant did not allege any discriminatory conduct or impact based on disability, and the respondent had offered accommodations which the applicant's mother refused, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file submissions regarding jurisdiction and contact information for two individual respondents, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file the submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the two individual respondents for abandonment and removed them as parties.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing in an age discrimination application in order to retain legal counsel and arrange witnesses.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent had ample time to retain counsel and comply with pre-hearing obligations since the hearing dates were scheduled months in advance.

The Tribunal held that consent of the parties alone is insufficient to grant an adjournment absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The applicant sought reactivation because he was discouraged by the progress of the grievance procedures.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not yet concluded and the basis for reactivation set out in the deferral decision had not been met.

The applicant alleged that he was targeted and issued a speeding ticket because of his colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application was determined in a prior trial where the applicant was convicted of speeding.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the Application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could point to no evidence that would tend to establish discrimination, and his case was based on mere speculation.

The Application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant had repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for exchanging arguably relevant documents, despite being granted three extensions of time and being warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant also failed to respond to the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he wished to pursue the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4153, requested to intervene on the basis that the outcome could affect bargaining unit employees and matters covered by the collective agreement.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after requesting accommodation for chemical sensitivity and indicating an intent to file a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the concurrent WSIB claim.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB process might take a very long time and would not address the human rights allegations unless it first found a work-related condition, and even then, could not provide a remedy for Code infringements.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal sent a letter requesting a status update and warned that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant failed to respond within 30 days.

The applicant did not respond.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning him of the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no new facts, evidence, or exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The respondents requested the removal of several individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability.

The corporate respondent, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, argued it had accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties.

The Tribunal declined to remove the individual respondents, noting that under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, a corporation is not vicariously liable for workplace harassment under section 5(2).

Removing the individuals would leave the applicant without a remedy for the harassment allegations.

One individual respondent was removed on consent.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment and uses a service dog, alleged discrimination based on age and disability during an employment prescreening orientation for a security guard position.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims but found that the respondents breached the Human Rights Code on the ground of disability.

The respondents asked inappropriate questions about the applicant's disability, failed to accommodate his request for the instructor to wear a portable microphone, and subsequently dismissed him from the orientation.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment based on age and disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been resolved through a grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve grievances that formed the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and re-litigation of issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, and association, including the use of racial slurs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions explaining the delay and clarifying the timeline, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and delivered to the respondents.