HRTO 2013

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy after previously finding the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant's back injury for a 38-day period.

The applicant sought $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal awarded $6,000, noting the objective seriousness was mitigated by the short duration and the respondents' subsequent provision of appropriate accommodation.

The Tribunal declined to order future compliance remedies, finding the corporate respondent had already implemented satisfactory human rights policies, training, and return-to-work protocols.

The applicants, francophone students attending a designated Sports School outside their residential boundaries, alleged that the respondent's by-law modification restricting athletic eligibility for out-of-boundary students disproportionately affected them based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

They requested an interim remedy to suspend the modification.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding no arguable case that the modification disproportionately affected francophone students compared to anglophone students.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the applications should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing to clarify allegations and discuss a timetable.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the potential consequences of failing to attend.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal, raising essentially the same allegations as a previous application that had been dismissed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the second application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that permitting the applicant to re-litigate the same allegations in a second application would violate the principles of judicial economy, consistency, and finality, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, noting the timing of the termination, comments about her appearance, and the issuance of a Record of Employment coded for pregnancy leave rather than dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $6,600 for lost wages and $12,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a mother with a permanent spinal cord injury, sought an interim remedy requiring the school board to add a temporary bus stop closer to her home for her two children.

The school board's policy only accommodated children's disabilities, not parents'.

The Tribunal found the application had merit, noting the harm to the children missing school outweighed the speculative harm to the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the interim remedy, ordering the respondents to provide a bus stop near the applicants' residence until the mother obtained a mobility scooter or a final decision was reached.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction that refused to waive the implied undertaking rule for certain documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its Rules, reconsideration is only available for final decisions, not preliminary or procedural directions.

The Tribunal also directed that respondents need not respond to further requests from the applicant unless explicitly directed, to prevent unnecessary expense and delay.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation and did not contact the Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent police service, claiming he was beaten and wrongfully charged with assault.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant submitted that he attempted to file within the timeline and requested deferral pending his criminal trial.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that an argument under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code would be unsuccessful, and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family and marital status be deferred pending a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the applicant's Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal found that the factual circumstances in the application overlapped significantly with the ESA claim, creating a risk of inconsistent factual findings.

Given the overlap and the advanced stage of the OLRB proceeding, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file witness lists, statements, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders and did not provide a will-say statement or confirm her testimony.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear for the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant brought a human rights application alleging discrimination in medical treatment while the claimant was incarcerated.

The application had been deferred pending a related proceeding before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents sought to reactivate the application.

The applicant requested to remove one doctor as a respondent and add another, having learned the correct identity of the attending physician.

The Tribunal granted the requests to reactivate, remove the incorrect respondent, and add the new respondent.

The Tribunal then deferred the application again pending the completion of the HPARB proceeding involving the newly added respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his provincial offences proceeding for a speeding ticket.

The applicant argued that re-activation was warranted because the Ontario Court of Justice had adjourned the provincial offences proceeding pending the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original deferral decision and denied the request to re-activate, noting that the reasons for deferral remained germane.

The applicant filed transitional applications alleging reprisal by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The applications were deferred pending the conclusion of related civil proceedings.

The Tribunal repeatedly requested status updates on the civil proceedings and warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the applications being dismissed as abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions for over two and a half months, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a related civil action.

The civil action was subsequently dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant for a status update, but the correspondence was returned and the applicant's phone number was out of service.

The applicant failed to update his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules and failed to file a request to proceed within 60 days of the civil action's conclusion.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to provide particulars regarding her allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing that it would cause further delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the proposed amendments amplified existing allegations rather than introducing new ones, and that the proceedings were still at an early stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability by his employer.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance process under the collective agreement dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that the grievance process was active and overlapping with the human rights allegations, in order to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove four individual managerial employees as personal respondents to a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for their actions and capable of remedying any breach.

The Tribunal reviewed the jurisprudence on removing personal respondents, including the Divisional Court's decision in OHRC v. Farris, and determined that a cautious approach is warranted at the pre-hearing stage.

Finding that the allegations could support a finding of personal liability under the Code, particularly regarding harassment where vicarious liability does not apply, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents without prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to participate in the scheduled hearing by teleconference because he was employed in Israel.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed him to attend in person.

The applicant then requested an adjournment, which was also denied.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his attendance by a specified date, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant emailed the Tribunal stating he would not attend.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.