HRTO 2013

The applicant, a migrant worker residing in Trinidad, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

He requested an order permitting him and a witness to testify by telephone, arguing he lacked status in Canada and could not attend the hearing in person.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to testify by telephone at this time, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant could not attend in person or via video conference.

However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to explore obtaining a visitor's visa or arranging compatible video conferencing from Trinidad.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his work-related injury.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding a WSIB decision that found no objective evidence supporting his need for a reduced workday.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that proceeding concurrently could lead to contrary findings on the central issue of whether the applicant required disability-related accommodation.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, claiming the respondent placement agency failed to refer him for a caregiver position and required him to disclose his age and medications on an application form.

The Tribunal found no discrimination in the failure to refer, as the applicant had not provided the required documentation to complete his application.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's application form at the time included a question about the applicant's date of birth, which violated section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

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

Upon termination of her employment, the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release in exchange for a severance package, which explicitly barred her from bringing a claim under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application could proceed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was given sufficient time to review the documents and did not sign them under duress.

The release was held to be binding, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference hearing due to a scheduling conflict of their counsel.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued, requiring exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Despite the respondent's consent, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

The applicant, acting as trustee for the Estate of Eva Bourgoin, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested dismissal based on a Release signed by the applicant.

The applicant argued the Release might be invalid because a litigation guardian had been appointed for her by a court order prior to signing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide information confirming her litigation guardian's involvement or that a litigation guardian is no longer required before the application can proceed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as an abuse of process because she had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she was denied the opportunity to present oral evidence regarding the circumstances of the release at the preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant had the opportunity to present evidence but failed to do so, and that this failure did not constitute new facts or a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

The original decision found that some allegations were out of time and the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already decided and had not established any of the grounds required under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a Black African man from the Congo, alleged that his union and its officers discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry in their representation of him during various disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidence or particulars to support his assertions of discrimination, meaning the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a cabinet-maker, suffered a workplace knee injury and was unable to perform modified work offered by the respondent because it required standing and the use of crutches.

The respondent terminated his employment for refusing the modified work.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability contrary to section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to employment and vocational associations because of reprisal.

The applicant alleged she was terminated by her employer and suspended from her vocational college after attempting to report patient abuse.

The College, initially notified as an affected person, requested to be added as a responding party.

The Tribunal granted the request, amending the style of cause to add the College as a party respondent, as allegations and claims for remedies were directed against it.

The applicant, a Youth Service Manager with an ankle injury, alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability after being moved to a new work location within a secure custody facility.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability-related needs were fully accommodated and that his allegations of harassment, based on 'side glances' from co-workers, were speculative.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the same respondents should be consolidated.

Finding significant overlap in the relevant allegations of fact, common issues of fact and law, and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated for hearing.

In a prior decision, the Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by terminating the applicant based in part on her disability, and awarded damages for injury to dignity.

In this decision on remedy, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's outstanding claim for lost employment insurance benefits.

The applicant sought compensation for 21 weeks of lost parental leave benefits, arguing she would have received them had she remained employed.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her entitlement to the additional benefits or that the respondent was responsible for the loss, particularly given her failure to mitigate her losses.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled human rights hearing on the basis that he would be out of the country and needed time to seek legal assistance.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant had ample time to obtain legal representation and prepare for the hearing, and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to be prepared to address preliminary issues at the hearing, including whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a patient member of the Committee to Evaluate Drugs, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because he received a lower per diem rate than professional members.

The respondent Ministry requested a summary hearing, arguing the applicant was not an employee and the Code did not apply.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a link between his disability and the lower per diem rate, and that it was not plain and obvious that the Code did not apply to the relationship.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to a full hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application did not set out specific incidents of alleged discrimination related to a Code ground.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions in response to the NOID, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage and directed that it be delivered to the respondents.

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

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

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and sex, as well as reprisal, in relation to child custody and support proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found no connection between the alleged adverse treatment by police and court officials and any ground of discrimination protected under the Human Rights Code.

The application was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

During the course of a hearing, the applicant fell ill and the hearing was adjourned.

Prior to the resumption of the hearing for final submissions, the applicant requested to re-open her case to subpoena her family doctor to testify regarding doctors' notes that the respondent had previously objected to.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample opportunity to call her doctor during her case-in-chief and that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to allow her to re-open her case at this late stage.