HRTO 2013

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to hire her for a front desk clerk position due to a vocal cord condition.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondents provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for their hiring decision.

The respondents had previously offered to cross-train the applicant for the front desk, and the successful candidate was considered more suitable for the position.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and creed.

He testified that a co-worker subjected him to racial slurs and religious harassment, and that he was subsequently laid off.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's conduct constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, but dismissed the claim against the co-worker because his full name was unknown.

The claim against the corporate respondent was dismissed because section 46.3(1) of the Code exempts corporations from vicarious liability for workplace harassment by employees.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence connecting the layoff to the applicant's human rights.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided proper notice to both parties.

The applicant failed to dial in or communicate with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

After waiting half an hour, the Tribunal terminated the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), naming both her former employer and her direct supervisor as respondents.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove the supervisor as a personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions and undertaking to make her available to testify.

The applicant did not contest the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to maintain the supervisor as a personal respondent and ordered her removed from the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

During the hearing process, the applicant was taken into custody and requested an indefinite abeyance of the proceedings pending his release.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for delay, arguing prejudice to their right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application, finding no breach of natural justice or actual prejudice established at this stage.

The Tribunal granted a three-month abeyance, directing the applicant to provide updates on his custody status and ability to attend, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and record of offences, following the termination of her employment at a daycare.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged unfair treatment regarding scheduling and lesson planning, and cited two discriminatory comments made by a co-worker.

The Tribunal found that the overriding issues were interpersonal conflicts unrelated to Code-protected grounds, and that the employer was not made aware of the co-worker's comments.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 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 respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the result of a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically harassment and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request because the respondent provided no particulars as to the substance or status of any pending WSIB claim.

In an interim decision regarding production requests, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written consent for the disclosure of her WSIB file and personal health information in the respondents' possession.

The Tribunal found that sections 59(6) and 181(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act do not bar disclosure when the employee consents.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce medical records related to her injuries and ability to work, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation and remedy, but declined to order production of her entire medical history.

The applicant, a 60-year-old lawyer, alleged age discrimination after he was not interviewed for a legal writer position with the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the primary hiring manager did not discriminate, as her concerns were based on the applicant's incomplete resume and lack of explanation for seeking a major career change.

However, the Tribunal found that an external HR consultant's communications to the applicant, which falsely stated he was rejected because the company was seeking more junior candidates, were tainted by age discrimination.

This deprived the applicant of the opportunity to follow up on his application.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including student records and teacher evaluations, and sought permission to record the hearing.

The respondent requested that the applicant provide detailed witness statements and cease discussing the case at the workplace.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for document production and recording, ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases, and directed the applicant to provide detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's undertaking not to discuss the case at the workplace.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's refusal to cover the costs of medical marijuana.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application by adding numerous new allegations and several new respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the new allegations, finding them too broad and disconnected from the original issue.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Bruce County and Simcoe County as respondents, but permitted the addition of the Province of Ontario and related ministries as they appeared involved in the funding and eligibility of benefits coverage.

The request for interim relief was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, which the Tribunal dismissed during a case management teleconference because eviction proceedings had not commenced and no medical documentation was filed.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure obligations, declining to dismiss the application and allowing a late-filed medical document subject to further submissions on prejudice at the hearing.

The Tribunal noted no evidence of witness interference by the respondent and directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The respondents requested the removal of four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the employees' conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also issued directions requiring the applicant to clarify whether she intends to testify, whether she will call the author of a psychoeducational report as an expert witness, and whether her mother will act as both her representative and a witness at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application without a full hearing or mediation, and reiterated his arguments regarding subtle manifestations of racism.

The Tribunal found that these issues were already carefully considered in the original decision and that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing chronic mood and anxiety disorders that impaired her ability to prepare and retain counsel.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant's medical condition was chronic and she failed to explain any recent change that would justify an adjournment just days before the hearing.

The applicant was permitted to testify without filing a witness statement.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending another proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Following a finding of reprisal and discrimination, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedy for the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to award lost wages, finding the applicant's wage loss was not directly attributable to the respondents' conduct.

However, to remedy the loss of opportunity caused by the respondents' reprisal, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to offer the applicant the opportunity to become a shareholder at fair market value as of April 2007.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to retain a human rights professional to review and improve their policies for selecting shareholders.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after his employment was terminated during his probationary period.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to the applicant's inappropriate and discriminatory comments.

After hearing the applicant's evidence at the merits hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a summary basis, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove his age was a factor in the termination.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because his spouse was undergoing medical treatment for a life-threatening illness.

The respondent objected to the request.

The Tribunal found that the seriousness of the illness and treatment constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The adjournment was granted.