HRTO 2013

The applicant, a massage therapist, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

After disclosing her pregnancy, the applicant was subjected to derogatory comments about her appearance, had her hours and walk-in clients significantly reduced, and was ultimately terminated.

The respondent did not participate in the proceeding and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions constituted discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with $3,962.50 for lost wages and tips, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training for management.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he had asked for an extension of time and alleged his email account was seized.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not dispute receiving notice of the hearing and had been explicitly directed to attend to deal with any adjournment requests.

The request for reconsideration was denied as there was no basis to exercise discretion to reconsider the original decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the matter had been appropriately dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board and if there was a link to a Code ground.

The respondent failed to participate.

After hearing the self-represented applicant's oral submissions regarding his disabilities and the respondent's alleged failure to provide a key-fob, the Tribunal concluded that the fair and just approach was to set the matter for an in-person hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed certain allegations and directed the applicant to provide further particulars if she wished to pursue the remaining allegations.

The applicant failed to provide the required particulars within the 14-day time limit.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed 13 of their applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants alleged that the adjudicator violated their section 7 Charter rights by denying them the opportunity to question the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision did not rely on the respondent's witnesses and that the applicants had failed to provide written submissions to establish a reasonable prospect of success when directed to do so.

The applicants failed to satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and giving the respondent an opportunity to reply.

The applicant confirmed his intention within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent sought to dismiss portions of the application on the basis of delay and abuse of process, arguing that the substance of the allegations had been resolved through a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's attempt to litigate issues already addressed in the signed Minutes of Settlement constituted an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed allegations predating September 2006 due to the applicant's failure to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The balance of the application, concerning accommodation requests made after September 2006, was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against Amex Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banking is a matter of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant argued the respondent was a credit card company, not a bank, and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had previously declined jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is a Schedule II bank under the Bank Act and that it was plain and obvious the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his eviction from a storage unit.

He had previously commenced a small claims court action against the respondents based on the identical facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which precludes duplicate proceedings where a civil action has been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of health care services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and disability.

She alleged that she had difficulty finding a family doctor and that immigrants receive preferential access to health care services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking her difficulties in finding a family doctor to any discriminatory actions by the Ministry of Health or the Ontario Medical Association.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal determined that because the one-year deadline fell on a statutory holiday (Good Friday), the application filed on the following Sunday was timely under Rule 1.10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to the respondents.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to address new allegations raised in the applicant's Reply regarding a workplace transfer and a performance appraisal.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request under Rule 1.7(c), allowing the respondent to file an amended Response and setting deadlines for the amended pleadings.

The applicant and respondents both filed requests for production of documents prior to the hearing of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for personnel files and emails, finding them not arguably relevant as the respondents were not relying on progressive discipline.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request for the applicant's tax returns and job search records, as they were arguably relevant to the mitigation of damages, but denied the request for legal fee records because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

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

Following a summary hearing, only one age-related allegation remained.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent, as there were no live allegations against him.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add new allegations and remedies.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the individual respondent.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add new allegations, finding it would be prejudicial given the late stage of the proceedings, but deferred the request to add new remedies to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He requested an interim remedy to be placed in another facility away from an allegedly poisoned environment and to have his disabilities accommodated, noting he had been out of the workplace and without income for several months.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the interim remedy was necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate, and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, as the Tribunal could order a remedy to make him whole if he were ultimately successful.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal, discrimination, and harassment in employment against her former employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's allegations described a workplace dispute involving excessive scrutiny and bullying, but did not connect this treatment to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on age and family status during a meeting regarding her work allocation.

The applicant claimed the individual respondent told her she was unqualified for her accounts payable role because she started at age 21 and that she did not need her job because she lived with her mother.

The Tribunal found the individual respondent's evidence more reliable than the applicant's, concluding that the alleged discriminatory statements were not made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an Early Childhood Educator, filed an Application alleging discrimination on the ground of 'employment' and reprisal after being bumped from her position by a Teaching Assistant with lesser seniority and qualifications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination related to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute was a workplace disagreement unrelated to the Code, and dismissed the Application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of three previous interim decisions regarding anonymization, an adjournment, and an extension of a deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decisions were not final decisions that disposed of the central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in housing based on family status, marital status, and receipt of public assistance.

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

The applicant provided no written submissions explaining how the alleged treatment, including an arrest and a Landlord and Tenant Board order, related to the Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.