HRTO 2013

The applicant, a 67-year-old security guard, alleged age discrimination after being temporarily replaced at his desk by a younger supervisor during a building tour by prospective buyers.

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

The applicant presented evidence that a supervisor had informed him the client requested his removal because he was 'old and short'.

The Tribunal concluded there was a reasonable prospect the applicant could prove his case and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant, a production employee, suffered a permanent neck flexion injury and was restricted to light lifting.

After a lengthy accommodation process, the respondent offered a modified machine operator position, which the applicant attempted but found unsuitable.

The applicant stopped working in August 2008.

In October 2010, the respondent terminated the applicant's employment for frustration of contract, noting there were no other suitable positions available.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the 2008 accommodation process as out of time.

Regarding the 2010 termination, the Tribunal found the respondent met both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate.

The Tribunal accepted that creating a permanent 'make work' position or displacing employees in other departments would constitute undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin.

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

The applicant provided submissions clarifying that the last incident occurred on April 30, 2012, within the one-year period.

The Tribunal found it was not clear and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that processing continue and the application be served on the respondents.

The respondents requested to reactivate the human rights application after criminal charges against the personal respondent were withdrawn.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's unredacted medical records dating back to 1997.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the redacted information was not arguably relevant and production would violate her privacy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had made her health arguably relevant through her testimony.

The Tribunal ordered the production of unredacted medical records, but limited the temporal scope to the period from September 2004, when the applicant first referenced her health, to February 2013, her last day of testimony.

In an interim decision during a human rights proceeding, the respondents sought disclosure of the applicants' immigration files, settlement organization records, and income tax information.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not waived solicitor-client privilege regarding their communications with immigration counsel.

However, the Tribunal ordered the disclosure of specific information regarding the timeline of their legal assistance, decisions denying refugee status, and any non-privileged communications with police, the Crown, or the union.

Requests for further income tax information and records from a settlement organization were denied as collateral.

The applicants' request to call an additional witness was also denied.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application, noting that the corporate respondent assumed responsibility for any remedy.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment while simultaneously pursuing a civil court action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw his application to continue with his court matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, a lube technician with kidney stones, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and reprisal after he was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant leaving work early without management approval, excessive absenteeism, and poor workmanship, culminating in insubordination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded the discipline and termination were not related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal held the respondent did not fail in its duty to accommodate, as the applicant was disciplined for failing to follow the proper departure protocol, not for his medical condition.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction proposing to consolidate two applications involving similar facts and legal issues.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and directed that mediation be scheduled.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of three concurrent grievance proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding no reason to depart from its normal practice.

The respondents requested that the union be added as a respondent or, alternatively, as an intervenor.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a respondent because the application contained no allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by the union.

However, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, consistent with its practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding involving the same facts and issues was ongoing.

The respondents and the union supported deferring the application.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to apply human rights law and that deferral serves the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin following an altercation at a grocery store express checkout lane.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had more than the permitted number of items and that the ensuing argument with the cashier and store owner was not motivated by the applicant's race or other enumerated grounds.

Although a third-party customer made offensive racial remarks during the incident, the store owner and staff appropriately intervened and attempted to de-escalate the situation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent Town of Fort Frances requested to be removed as a party, arguing it was merely the sole shareholder of the respondent Fort Frances Power Corporation and had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request at this preliminary stage, noting the applicant's assertion that her pay cheques and benefits came from the Town, and held that the Town could renew its request with evidentiary support if mediation failed.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found against him and the corporate respondent for sexual harassment and reprisal.

He argued he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent had received fair warning that failing to respond could result in the Tribunal proceeding without notice, and that he had failed to update his address with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to include additional remedial relief, including lost income calculations and general damages, against both the respondent employer and the union.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the monetary remedy sought against the employer, noting the respondent did not oppose it.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to amend the application regarding the union, as the application against the union had been previously dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age, claiming he was isolated, denied training, and terminated because he did not speak Vietnamese.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own evidence contradicted his claims, as other non-Vietnamese speaking employees of Polish origin received the training he was allegedly denied.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove a link between his treatment and the alleged Code grounds, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested to dismiss allegations pre-dating December 11, 2011 for delay, and requested a summary hearing for the remaining surveillance allegation.

The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations, finding no good faith explanation for the delay, as waiting for an internal investigation to conclude does not justify delay.

The request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant's request to amend was dismissed without prejudice, and the union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to exchange and file documents and witness statements by specified deadlines, failing which the application could be declared abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or provide an explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she disclosed her pregnancy.

The corporate respondent requested that the individual who informed the applicant of her termination be removed as a personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the individual acted in the course of his duties and the corporate respondent agreed to assume any liability.

The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.