HRTO 2013

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and unpaid wages be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Act proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the employment standards officer's decision appropriately dealt with the claims for unpaid wages and overtime, it did not address the allegations of sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal ordered that the application could proceed with respect to the sexual solicitation allegations, but dismissed the claims for unpaid wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on the receipt of public assistance.

She challenged a co-op policy requiring overhoused subsidized tenants to move to appropriately sized units or lose their subsidy.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicant had not been personally subjected to the policy and was relying on speculation about future impacts.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding for the production of documents in the respondents' possession, alleging that the respondents were selectively deciding what was relevant.

The respondents maintained they had disclosed all arguably relevant documents, including the entire employment file.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant but declined to issue the order, as there was no evidence the respondents were withholding any documents.

The applicant, a water operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being disciplined for refusing to clean washrooms at his workplace.

He claimed that as a Sri Lankan, he had a cultural sensitivity to cleaning washrooms and that he was the only operator required to perform this duty.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the requirement to clean washrooms to the applicant's heritage, and evidence showed that cleaning was a standard duty for all water operators.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three procedural issues.

First, it ordered the applicant to produce travel documents relevant to the mitigation of damages.

Second, it denied the applicant's request to alter the order of proceedings to have the respondent present its case before the applicant's medical witnesses.

Third, it directed the respondent to provide detailed witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent sought to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the LTB only deals with landlord and tenant matters.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the two proceedings, as both involved the validity of an eviction notice allegedly issued because of the applicant's asthma.

Given the advanced stage of the LTB matter, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the LTB proceeding.

The applicants filed 17 applications alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability against the Town of Penetanguishene.

The allegations related to the slope of sidewalks, lack of sidewalks, disabled parking spots, and accessibility of various municipal facilities.

Following a hearing to hear the applicants' evidence, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants failed to provide the requested submissions or sufficient medical evidence to establish that their specific disabilities resulted in the alleged barriers.

The Tribunal dismissed all 17 applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success, delay, lack of jurisdiction, or abandonment.

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

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

The applicant provided written submissions clarifying that the last incident occurred later than initially stated on the form.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed outside the statutory deadline and declined to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed one allegation regarding a supervisor calling the applicant a thief, finding no evidence linking the conduct to a protected ground.

The remaining allegations, which involved factual disputes regarding performance management and accommodation following a head injury, were allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed late and that the arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding no duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal noted the potential application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, which allows dismissal if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal ordered a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application related to child protection proceedings and funding for services.

After the respondent Ministry granted funding for a year and the Society agreed to withdraw the child protection application, the Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to intervene.

The respondent argued the application was moot and opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal ruled that the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right under s. 37(2) of the Human Rights Code, regardless of whether the application is moot.

The Tribunal also revoked the order expediting the application and set a schedule to hear arguments on mootness.

The applicant, a recipient of ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination in accommodation after the respondent landlord terminated a lease agreement.

The lease required rent to be paid by direct deposit from ODSP.

When ODSP refused to make direct payments, the respondent decided not to rent to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that requiring direct payment of rent because the applicant was in receipt of public assistance violated section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $1,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting that the respondent would have ultimately refused the tenancy anyway due to a poor reference.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no indication that the WSIAT proceeding would address the same issues, such as accommodation to the point of undue hardship, and therefore no risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay to establish good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding a pharmaceutical product received in Alberta.

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 failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant's collective bargaining agent, the Niagara Regional Police Association, filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, and recognizing that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by its members regarding employment, the Tribunal granted the Association leave to intervene.

The scope of the intervention was deferred to the merits hearing.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was delivered to the applicant's representative.

Neither the applicant nor her representative attended the hearing.

In the absence of any explanation for their failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing stress, the need to retain counsel, and her father's ill health.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the desire to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled and the current state of her father's health did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant requested a Tribunal investigation under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to obtain evidence regarding the hiring of another teacher and demographic data of the respondent's teachers.

The applicant also sought directions on the admissibility of audio recordings made without the knowledge of the recorded parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an investigation, finding that the normal document production and witness subpoena processes were sufficient.

The Tribunal ruled that the audio recordings were not inherently inadmissible but directed the applicant to subpoena the recorded individuals if he wished to rely on the recordings and the individuals refused to testify voluntarily.