HRTO 2013

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after his employer learned he smoked marijuana, to which he claimed addiction.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing the termination was for performance issues and they had no knowledge of any disability.

The Tribunal found that given the timing of the termination relative to the employer learning of the marijuana use, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and could proceed.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for his actions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer her human rights application pending an appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The respondent opposed the request, arguing there was no overlap in issues and noting the application had been filed over two years prior with hearing dates already set.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no evidence of overlapping issues and concluding that deferral would not be fair, just, or expeditious given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing based on place of origin and ethnic origin.

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

The applicant alleged that a worker entered his unit without proper notice, was rude, and that the police were called, resulting in him being taken to the hospital and his driver's licence being suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin or ethnic origin.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of medical documents relating to a witness's doctor visits and more detailed witness statements from the respondent.

The Tribunal found the medical documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's claim that the applicant was terminated for performance reasons, ordering their production with unrelated medical information redacted.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide revised witness statements particularizing the alleged performance issues.

The applicant, a cook at a bilingual daycare centre, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry and place of origin because she was regularly addressed in French and could not speak the language.

The respondents sought summary dismissal on the basis that language is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of fluency in French was not sufficiently linked to her ancestry or place of origin, and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Two applicants filed separate human rights applications alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by the same co-workers and employer.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that the applications shared common issues of fact and law, and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing significant prejudice.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The respondents sought clarification, treated by the Tribunal as a request for variation, of an interim order requiring them to provide school bus transportation for the applicants' children at a specific stop.

The respondents proposed providing alternate bussing to minimize the impact on existing routes.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the issue of potential impact had already been adjudicated and the respondents provided no evidence of harm to other students or parents to justify varying the order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation by the respondent at his restaurant franchise.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the parallel proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because no decision had yet been made in the employment standards claim.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should instead be deferred under s. 45 of the Code.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Employment Standards Act claim, and that two personal respondents be removed from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal factual overlap between the ESA claim for termination pay and the human rights claim for failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, as they were acting within the scope of their employment and the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal also accepted the applicant's late-filed materials in the absence of prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent employer filed a request for early dismissal, while the respondent union sought a 45-day extension to file its response due to a plant closure.

The applicant requested an order under Rule 5.5 against the union.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's Rule 5.5 request, granted the union a 35-day extension to file its response, and directed the applicant to file a reply addressing the employer's early dismissal request.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to include an unspecified financial remedy and requesting an extension of time to file her Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the application because the applicant failed to identify the specific financial remedy sought, but noted she could file another request with the required information.

The extension of time for the Reply had already been granted.

The respondents requested that the hearing be scheduled in Midland so the site could be viewed.

The applicant, who uses a mobility scooter, had previously requested and been granted a hearing in Waterloo as an accommodation for her disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, finding that they had articulated insufficient reason to move the hearing from the location chosen to accommodate the applicant's Code-related needs.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of his personal medical file from the respondent employer.

The applicant alleged he was terminated for absenteeism related to a disability, while the respondent claimed the termination was for non-discriminatory reasons and that no accommodation was requested.

The Tribunal found the medical file arguably relevant to determining what information the respondent had regarding the applicant's medical condition.

The request was granted in part, with the respondent ordered to produce medical file documents from April 1, 2011 onwards.

The applicant alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code after the respondent refused to permit her to return from a medical leave as a full-time teacher on a half-time medical leave.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance raising the same issue.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing regarding an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and reminded the parties of their obligations to file and serve documents and witness lists prior to the rescheduled hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing teleconference due to the death of her father and her need to attend his funeral.

The respondent argued the request should be dealt with under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, which requires exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and granted the adjournment.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his termination from employment, almost two and a half years after the incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to illness, difficulty finding a lawyer, working in a remote location, and seeking pension benefits.

The Tribunal found these did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application as untimely.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction that granted the applicant a two-week extension to file written submissions on preliminary objections.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that a decision to extend time limits is an exercise of discretionary power and not a final decision, and therefore not open to reconsideration under Rule 26.1.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it were open to reconsideration, the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence regarding statutory limitation periods.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation due to mould in his apartment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a Superior Court action commenced by the applicant concerning the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.