HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the attendance management program at two respondent work sites.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applicant had standing against William Osler Health Centre and if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant was employed solely by Carillion Services Inc. and lacked standing against William Osler.

Furthermore, the applicant's theoretical concerns about the attendance program, which had been revised following a union policy grievance settlement, did not raise issues under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The original application, alleging failure to accommodate a heart attack and subsequent termination, was filed approximately seven years after the events.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no new determinative facts, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no compelling circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant's ignorance of the human rights process did not excuse the significant delay.

The applicant, a student at Seneca College, alleged discrimination based on disability and reprisal after his email privileges were suspended and he was suspended from school following incidents related to his mental health.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to actions taken by York University, as they did not involve Seneca College.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations regarding the suspension of email privileges and school suspension to proceed, finding the applicant may be able to establish a link between these actions and his mental health disability.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnic origin, and disability.

She argued that her evidence was not given due consideration and raised procedural issues, including the adjudicator's refusal to allow her to testify under hypnosis or via a lie detector test.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely re-arguing positions already considered and failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondents requested an order removing the individual respondent and striking certain paragraphs from an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the individual respondent, noting he was alleged to be the primary decision-maker who did not renew the applicant's contract, rather than merely an instrument of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also declined to strike paragraphs related to the applicant's earnings and the impact of the alleged events, leaving those issues for the hearing adjudicator.

The requests were denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after the respondent declined to rehire him.

The applicant claimed he was not hired because of a previous 'washroom problem' related to his age and need for frequent breaks.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to establish a disability within the meaning of the Code, failed to show the respondent was aware of any such disability, and could not link the failure to hire to a prohibited ground.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance and arbitration proceedings dealing with the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to address all claims, including human rights issues.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, a stroke victim, alleged discrimination based on disability because the respondent municipality refused to upgrade and maintain an unassumed road where she owned a house.

She argued that the lack of snow removal could prevent emergency medical services from reaching her.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the refusal to upgrade the road applied to everyone and any disadvantage was due to her choice to live on an unassumed road, not her disability.

The applicant requested accommodations for the hearing of his human rights application, including limiting the hearing to one day or conducting it by telephone, and relocating it from Toronto to Burlington.

He cited his health condition and provided a doctor's note stating it would be a 'reasonable assumption' that he would find a hearing longer than two days difficult.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the medical evidence insufficient to establish that the requested accommodations were required for his disability.

The hearing was ordered to proceed in Toronto in blocks of no more than two days, as agreed to by the respondent.

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, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

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

The applicant submitted that medical conditions affected his ability to file on time.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents, leaving the final determination on the delay issue for a later stage.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was filed more than 30 days after the original decision without a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 that would justify reconsideration, as her request merely expressed dissatisfaction with court decisions regarding her child custody and support matters.

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

The Tribunal previously placed the application in abeyance until October 1, 2012, with instructions that it would be dismissed as abandoned if neither party requested to proceed within six months of that date.

As neither party contacted the Tribunal within the specified timeframe, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being let go from his position as a court usher.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was scheduled for arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that the grievance arbitration would deal with the same factual and legal issues and that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the initial NOID and a subsequent reminder sent to his residence and email, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding dealing with the same facts and allegations of Code discrimination.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status and deferred the application, finding that it would be most fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings that could lead to inconsistent decisions, as the grievance arbitrator has jurisdiction to enforce the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on sex and family status, claiming she was constructively dismissed after taking pregnancy leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim with the Ministry of Labour raising similar facts and issues.

The applicant agreed to the deferral, and the respondent did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested to defer the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and citizenship.

The request was based on the fact that the applicant had previously filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding unpaid wages and termination.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim and the human rights application overlapped factually, particularly regarding the applicant's employment status and the circumstances of his termination.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ESA process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.