HRTO 2013

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents contravened the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights complaint by disparaging him and discussing the original allegations.

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

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality provision in the settlement only covered the terms of the Minutes, not the underlying events, and the 'no admission of liability' clause did not prevent the respondents from discussing the events.

As there was no non-disparagement clause, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a Chinese-Canadian software developer, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race.

He claimed that his Iranian-Canadian manager and senior colleague unfairly criticized his work performance, yelled at him, and denied him salary increases because he was not Iranian-Canadian.

The Tribunal found that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, primarily related to the applicant's excessive personal internet use and performance issues.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that race was a factor in the employer's conduct and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal regarding workplace accommodation.

Concurrently, his union had filed grievances on his behalf concerning discipline and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Applying the factors from Baghdasserians, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate given the substantial overlap in facts, issues, and remedies between the two proceedings, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that his disability, ongoing litigation, and a period of incarceration provided a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's new documents did not provide substantially different information than what was before the Tribunal originally, and that none of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26 were met.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a foreign-trained lawyer, alleged discrimination and reprisal in the hiring process at the respondent law firm.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders regarding document production.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce unredacted CVs, cover letters, and interview notes for candidates hired or interviewed for the relevant positions, as well as organizational charts and job advertisements.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce financial statements relating to his law practice for mitigation purposes, but denied the respondents' requests for the applicant's medical records and academic transcripts.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Code due to a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that a procedural error occurred because the applicant's reply submissions were not before the adjudicator when the original decision was made.

Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal noted the applicant had filed an Amended Statement of Claim in the civil action that removed Code-based allegations and remedies.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the application should not be dismissed under section 34(11), but ordered it deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action due to overlapping factual issues.

The applicant alleged that his former employer reprised against him by providing an inaccurate employment verification letter four years after his employment ended.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegation that the employer intended to reprise against the applicant, noting that the employer responded quickly and the inaccuracy was due to the insurance company ceasing to exist.

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

The applicants requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights applications as abandoned after they failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicants argued they did not attend because they believed the hearing only pertained to one of the respondents and they were unaware the applications could be dismissed for non-attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicants received proper notice that clearly warned of the consequences of failing to attend and indicated the hearing pertained to both respondents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The request was filed approximately 25 days after the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal waived the time limit, finding that the delay was incurred in good faith because the applicant was not informed of the criminal proceeding's conclusion until after the deadline, and there was no evidence of substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The application was reactivated.

The respondent requested an order for the disclosure of the applicant's occupational health file and to compel the Occupational Health Nurse to answer inquiries prior to filing its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request for the production of the occupational health file, finding exceptional circumstances as the respondent could not access its own internal medical documents due to privacy legislation.

The Tribunal denied the request to compel the nurse to answer inquiries, noting it lacked the authority to compel a person to speak to a party in the preparation of a pleading.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, regarding her treatment at two food banks.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the first application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no link between the alleged poor treatment and a prohibited ground under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining two applications for delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring whether they intended to proceed with the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal issued a letter directing the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment under Rule 5.4.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal.

She claimed the respondent failed to interview her for two positions in retaliation for a human rights complaint she filed against a different employer 11 years prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not appear to raise an issue within its jurisdiction.

Finding the applicant's allegations highly speculative and amounting to a bare assertion, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage as it was plain and obvious it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after his employment was terminated.

He brought a request for an order during proceedings to add a co-worker as a personal respondent, alleging the co-worker made discriminatory comments during the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the allegations could lead to a finding of a Code infringement and there was no prejudice to the proposed respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent cancelled her contract as an examiner because she missed a mandatory two-day training session due to the flu and strep throat.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, the application must be dismissed because the applicant's short-term, commonplace illnesses did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant's union had withdrawn a grievance on her behalf, and alternatively requested deferral pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting that unilateral withdrawal of a grievance does not satisfy section 45.1.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the Application due to a lack of explanation from the respondent.

Finally, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant could not add the union as a party simply by naming them in her Reply.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal disregard the respondent's late Response and reactivate his deferred application following the conclusion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The Tribunal waived the time limit for the late Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant and noting the applicant contributed to the delay by improperly delivering an unfinalized copy of the application to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application, as the applicant complied with the Rules and the respondent did not oppose.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed nine human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisals by the respondents for incidents occurring between 1992 and 1998, and between 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 1992-1998 incidents, finding the 14-year delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the 2012-2013 incidents, finding the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged incidents to a prohibited ground of discrimination, meaning there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against York University.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, claiming the adjudicator improperly removed personal respondents, denied adjournment requests, and refused to allow certain witnesses to testify.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's claims and found that they had either been fully addressed in previous interim decisions or did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.