HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations described workplace bullying and harassment related to the applicant's participation in an internal management investigation, rather than any Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the claims fell outside its jurisdiction as they lacked any connection to the Human Rights Code.

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

She claimed she was terminated and denied accommodation after suffering workplace injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not terminated, but rather was issued a Record of Employment for illness to allow her to collect sickness benefits.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent had offered modified work, but the applicant was physically unable to perform any available duties.

As the applicant failed to establish any adverse treatment, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal had previously denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and confirmed the hearing would proceed.

After waiting 30 minutes for the applicant to appear or communicate with the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on ethnic origin, association, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the entire application fell outside its jurisdiction, although it noted a lack of allegations supporting the record of offences ground.

The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response that provided no meaningful defence.

After the respondents failed to comply with the Registrar's direction to file a new Response, the Tribunal issued an interim decision.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file a completed Response within 21 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming them to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that a physician and his staff discriminated against him and his son on the basis of disability by terminating the physician-patient relationship.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaints had already been appropriately dealt with by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that the CPSO and HPARB processes constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of accessible bus services.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, there was a compelling reason to add ONTC as it is responsible for the bus service, and it would be fair to do so.

The request to add ONTC as a respondent was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding modified duties and termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of the applicant's related appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

Finding considerable overlap in the issues, including whether the respondent offered suitable work and accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer issues a final decision.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service officers discriminated against him on the basis of race during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

He claimed the officers assaulted him and made discriminatory comments.

After the applicant presented his evidence at the hearing on the merits, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove a link between the alleged assault and his race, and found his testimony regarding the discriminatory comments to be not credible.

The application was dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction, as it did not set out specific incidents of alleged discrimination related to a Code ground.

In response, the applicant alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage, directing that the Application be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal in her employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an inspection and orders by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Inspector's orders related to machine safety and worker representation, and did not address the applicant's specific allegations of discriminatory treatment or workplace harassment.

The applicant, a mathematics teacher, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed when he was not hired for a long-term substitute teaching position.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide detailed summaries of verbal complaints about the applicant's performance and to produce documents regarding the successful candidate's qualifications that were considered in the hiring decision.

The Tribunal denied requests for documents showing how the successful candidate was placed on the eligibility list and for demographic lists of teachers, finding them irrelevant or unreliable.

The applicant's request for the Tribunal to record the hearing was also denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent's preliminary request to dismiss the application was previously denied, and the respondent was ordered to file a full Response.

After being granted extensions, the respondent failed to file the Response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to file a full Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination in services after being discharged from an Intensive Behavioural Intervention program.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also concluded that the allegations, if true, could not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of ethnic origin against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Independent Police Review Director.

The respondents filed responses raising preliminary issues and requesting dismissal.

The applicant failed to file a Reply and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, scheduled to commence in a few days, because the Human Rights Legal Support Centre was unable to represent him due to a mix-up with his documents.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant's circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances, as self-representation is common and the applicant failed to act diligently in seeking the adjournment.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's union observer status and the right to make submissions on matters impacting the bargaining unit.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove its Senior Human Resources Manager as an individual respondent to an application alleging employment discrimination based on creed.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the application contained no factual allegations against the individual respondent and that the corporate respondent could provide the requested monetary remedy.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing without explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer this application pending the determination of an earlier 2009 application involving similar facts and issues, notably concerning alleged sexual harassment by a personal respondent and a failure to investigate.

Finding significant overlap between the two matters, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions and prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and harassment by the respondent employer.

Subsequently, the applicant's union filed a grievance on his behalf raising the same issues.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions, and deferred the matter pending the completion of the grievance process.