HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to provide further particulars and to copy the respondents on correspondence.

After the applicant failed to provide proof of copying the respondents and failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants, who are in receipt of ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they were denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon, which is available to OW recipients.

The applicants requested to consolidate their applications and the applicant Megan Hinsley requested to amend her application.

The respondent requested summary hearings.

The Tribunal granted the requests to consolidate and amend, and denied the respondent's requests for summary hearings.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the applicant to add 32 new allegations of racial profiling to his human rights application.

The respondent argued that some of the new allegations were the subject of civil claims.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the respondent was improperly using the reconsideration process to appeal the interim decision, and directed the respondent to file a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the new allegations instead.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a further extension of time to file its amended Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment, claiming the personal respondent acted aggressively towards her and other female employees.

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

Assuming the applicant's allegations and witness statements to be true, the Tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect that the evidence could show a link between the applicant's gender and the alleged events.

The application was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that the adjudicator at the hearing was different from the one who conducted the pre-hearing case assessment, and that he had found new witnesses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that a change in adjudicator is not a ground for reconsideration and that the applicant failed to establish that the new witness evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

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

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

The applicant failed to file written submissions or contact the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant passed away after filing an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Counsel for the applicant requested that the application be held in abeyance pending the appointment of an estate trustee.

In the absence of any objection from the respondent, the Tribunal directed that the application be held in abeyance for four months to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights applications against the school board and individual respondents.

The request was made more than 30 days after the final decision.

The Tribunal found that the new information provided by the applicant would not be determinative of the issues and that her other arguments merely disagreed with the original decision's reasoning.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, by the respondent police services board.

The allegations stemmed from the police's handling of a neighbour dispute and the applicant's subsequent arrest for violating a peace bond.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the police's actions and her age or perceived mental health issues, nor any evidence of reprisal for claiming a Code right.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services after being refused seating at a franchise restaurant.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the unidentified manager/owner due to lack of contact information.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the franchisor at a preliminary stage, directing that franchisor liability be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal also noted the franchisee's failure to respond and directed the matter to proceed to a one-day hearing.

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed five human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and disability, as well as reprisal, against the college and several of its instructors and staff members.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had any reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of discrimination and most of her reprisal claims were based on speculation and lacked any factual foundation linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed one aspect of the applicant's reprisal claim—alleging that the college's Code of Conduct Administrator reprised against her for claiming her rights under the Code during his investigation—to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The remaining applications and claims were dismissed.

The applicant, a Seventh-day Adventist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after the respondent refused to accommodate her religious observance of the Sabbath during mandatory weekend training.

The applicant was hired but told she must attend training on a Saturday.

When she explained her religious restrictions, the respondent's representatives asked her to set aside her beliefs "for this once" and subsequently refused to explore alternative training schedules.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the applicant's religious beliefs.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with $1,035.25 for lost wages.

The applicant brought an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed.

During the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal ruled certain documents inadmissible.

The applicant requested an adjournment to consult a lawyer, which was denied.

The applicant then failed to attend the continuation of the hearing the following day.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights application.

The corporate respondents were in receivership, and proceedings against them were stayed.

The applicant sought to proceed against the individual respondent, a director, and to add an employee as a party.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no compelling reason to add the employee and no basis to hold the individual respondent personally liable for the corporation's obligations under the settlement, absent evidence of fraud or deceit.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the identity of the security company used at BMO Field, intending to add them as a respondent to his human rights application alleging racial discrimination.

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place voluntarily confirmed it is the employer of the security guards.

The Tribunal found no order was necessary as the requested information had been provided, and directed the applicant to promptly take steps if he intends to add a respondent.

The respondent requested the dismissal of an age discrimination application regarding driver's licence testing for individuals over 80, arguing it was barred by s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed that because a similar complaint had been filed by a different person under the old Part IV, the current application was barred.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that s. 53(8) only prevents the same person from relitigating a previously resolved complaint.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the relevant regulation applies despite the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after having signed a full and final release in favour of the respondent upon his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given sufficient time to consider the separation offer and seek independent legal advice, and that there was no compelling reason to set aside the binding release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that allowed the application against them.

They argued that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre unfairly provided support only to the applicant and sought to introduce new facts about the applicant's background.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new facts were irrelevant, could have been obtained earlier, and that the HRLSC is a separate agency whose services do not form a ground for reconsidering a decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after being unsuccessful in two job competitions.

After hearing the applicant's case and the respondent's key witness, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of racial bias, noting that the successful candidate was clearly superior and the applicant's own references did not recommend her for the position.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested the removal of two named individual respondents and the production of the applicant's health file prior to mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for their actions and capable of satisfying any remedial order.

The Tribunal denied both parties' requests for document production as premature, noting that the parties had not yet attended mediation and the rules provide for document exchange 21 days after receipt of the Notice of Hearing.