HRTO 2013

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal subsequently requested updates on the status of the other proceeding.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's latest request and had no communication with the Tribunal for nearly a year, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

Two of the respondents failed to file a response within the required timeline, despite being re-served at an alternative address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondents to file a response within 14 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and subsequent Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent doctor's office.

Prior to filing a response, the respondent sought confirmation that it could rely on the applicant's personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) without consent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to either provide written consent or file submissions opposing the respondent's use and disclosure of her personal health information.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, statements, and documents.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, who has mental health disabilities, alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against her by failing to lay charges against her ex-boyfriend for sexual assault and against her neighbour for a dispute.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the applicant's disability was a factor in the policing outcomes, noting her vague recollection of events and the appropriateness of the police response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against a First Nations education authority.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction questioning its jurisdiction, noting that employment in the provision of educational services on First Nations typically falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant confirmed that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had accepted jurisdiction over her claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondents from the application and to bar the applicant from relying on documents disclosed two days late.

The Tribunal removed the members of the Board of Directors as personal respondents because the corporate respondent accepted liability and no specific allegations were made against them.

The Tribunal declined to remove the Director, as her alleged conduct was central to the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also refused to bar the applicant's documents, finding the minor delay caused no prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and several managers, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents named the WSIB as an additional respondent, alleging that the WSIB orchestrated the human rights claim to avoid retraining the applicant.

The WSIB requested to be removed as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that there were no allegations that the WSIB discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code, and therefore it was not a proper party to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability-related need for accessible parking.

She brought requests for an order during proceedings to provide notice to an adjacent condominium corporation as an affected party, to correct the legal name of the respondent condominium, and to amend her application to add non-monetary and public interest remedies.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting the adjacent condominium shared the disputed parking area and the amendments provided greater clarity without prejudicing the respondents.

The applicant requested a fourth adjournment of the hearing dates due to ongoing medical issues, including fibromyalgia and the after-effects of an assault, as well as his responsibilities as a caregiver for his parents.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the events at issue occurred over four years ago and the applicant's circumstances were chronic with no indication they would improve by the requested adjourned dates.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for a timely resolution and the burden of further delay.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related claim under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondent opposed the reactivation because the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal was still ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the other process had not yet been completed as required by the initial deferral decision.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer further consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance procedure and a WSIB objection.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its general practice to defer when there is a concurrent grievance because labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

The respondent employer filed a request to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was federally regulated.

The applicant, though represented by counsel, failed to file any submissions opposing the request within the permitted time.

The adjudicator granted the request and dismissed the application, finding it had been abandoned by the applicant.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding in court concerning the same matters.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the Statement of Claim were substantially the same as those in the application.

Pursuant to section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits an application if a civil proceeding has been commenced with respect to the same matters, the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the corporate respondent breached Minutes of Settlement and ordered pre-judgment interest.

The applicant argued that post-judgment interest should have been ordered instead.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or other factors outweighing the finality of decisions.

The Tribunal confirmed that pre-judgment interest was appropriate because the interest was payable due to a breach of contract, not a failure to comply with a judgment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race and colour at a McDonald's restaurant.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision substituting the franchisee, Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., for the corporate franchisor as the respondent.

The applicant subsequently requested that the franchisor remain as a respondent.

The Tribunal found no reasonable basis to conclude the corporate franchisor had a nexus to the alleged conduct of the franchisee's employees and declined to vary its previous order.

The applicant, a 13-year employee, was terminated after developing osteoarthritis in his knee and requiring back surgery.

The respondent had introduced a work hardening plan to increase the physical demands of his clerical role.

When the applicant was unable to complete an independent medical examination due to his back surgery incision opening, the respondent terminated his employment without exploring other accommodation options or discussing the matter with him.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship, noting a lack of procedural accommodation and reliance on stereotypes.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $22,798 for lost income, and ordered human rights training for management.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that the strict application of the collective agreement prevented him from achieving the rank of Captain in the Operations Division.

Due to a disability, the applicant had transferred to the Training Division in 2000.

Under the collective agreement, candidates for Captain in Operations required two years of recent service in Operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not forced to transfer out of Operations and ought to have reasonably known or inquired about his potential to remain in Operations indefinitely while being accommodated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the applications.