HRTO 2013

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged that the respondent union reprised against him contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code after he reported witnessing a coworker assault a Black inmate.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's truthful reporting of the incident did not constitute a refusal to infringe the inmate's Code rights, especially since his report did not allege discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate in the proceeding.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer, his union, a union representative, and the WSIB, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union and its representative should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously filed an unsuccessful duty of fair representation complaint with the OLRB based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations and dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the WSIB, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it merely challenged a benefits decision without raising a valid Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Toronto Police Department and several officers based on race, place of origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations pre-dating May 2011 were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also concluded that the remaining timely allegations, which involved traffic stops, police presence in the applicant's neighbourhood, and interactions at police stations, had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to establish a link between the police conduct and his Code-protected characteristics.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for June 27, 2013, due to illness, providing a medical certificate.

The respondent did not provide submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that illness can be an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

As this was the applicant's third adjournment request, the Tribunal ordered that the rescheduled three-day hearing would be set on dates convenient to the respondent and would be peremptory on the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, as well as a concurrent complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) based on the same facts.

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

The respondent supported the deferral, while the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application to prevent concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting the applicant could request to reactivate the application after the ESA process concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent transit commission based on race, colour, and creed during incidents in October 2011 and March 2012.

The respondent requested a summary hearing and argued the October 2011 allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to its rules.

However, the Tribunal found that the October 2011 incident was out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' with the March 2012 incident, as they involved different individuals and were separated by more than five months.

The October 2011 allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking the removal of two individuals who had been named as personal respondents to the human rights application.

The corporate respondent consented to the removal.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and amended the title of proceeding accordingly.

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

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After multiple adjournments due to the applicant's medical issues, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications or provide medical documentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent was directed to advise whether she intended to proceed with her related breach of settlement application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities, and contracts because of disability and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant's request for an adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after being terminated following a workplace injury.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision regarding termination pay had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the OLRB review was a proceeding, it only addressed whether the applicant engaged in wilful misconduct and did not analyze whether the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicants requested to amend their human rights applications to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent co-operative announced they could not run for the Board of Directors due to their ongoing applications.

The respondents did not oppose the request but asked for particulars regarding the applicants' intentions to run for the Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, directing the applicants to provide the requested particulars.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the individual respondent had an important personal matter.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding that the respondents failed to provide exceptional circumstances to justify the request, as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also issued directions regarding several outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The applicant, a waitress at a sports bar, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after the respondents introduced a new form-fitting uniform.

When the applicant raised concerns that the uniform would highlight her pregnancy, the personal respondent agreed to exempt her but subsequently stopped scheduling her for shifts and eventually issued a Record of Employment indicating she had quit.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by reducing her shifts to zero and terminating her employment because of her pregnancy.

The respondents were ordered to pay $2,848 for lost income and $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to complete human rights training.

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

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance regarding the same facts, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the concurrent grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay and financial hardship, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues, and the grievance arbitrator's jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment, claiming she was terminated after reporting the respondent's allegedly improper OHIP billing practices.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the allegations did not relate to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the workplace disagreement and subsequent termination fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer unfairly placed her under surveillance while she was on medical leave.

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

The Tribunal found that the surveillance was initiated because of a gap in medical information and a discrepancy between the applicant's stated restrictions and her medical evidence, not because of her disability itself.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his three human rights applications as an abuse of process and having no reasonable prospect of success, and which declared him a vexatious litigant.

The applicant argued procedural irregularities and presented what he claimed was new evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and that the evidence presented was not new within the meaning of the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested an order to vary a Case Assessment Direction that required the parties to schedule three consecutive hearing dates.

The respondents argued that finding consecutive dates was difficult due to counsel's schedule and that the applicant had not demonstrated a necessity for consecutive dates.

The Tribunal agreed that consecutive dates were not strictly necessary and varied the direction to allow the parties to schedule three non-consecutive hearing dates between October and November 2013.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with by the soccer club's internal committee hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation or complaints process established under a club's constitution and by-laws does not constitute a 'proceeding' under a statutory regime within the meaning of section 45.1.