HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify whether a breach of Minutes of Settlement had occurred, as the application alleged a failure to comply with a final decision rather than a settlement.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction within the specified time.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The grievance proceeding concluded with a settlement in October 2012.

The applicant failed to file a Request to Reactivate the deferred application within 60 days as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but withdrew his agreement to attend mediation because the respondents intended to participate by conference call.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant directing her to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of his association with a friend who has a disability (hypersensitivity to chemicals).

The friend had been barred from the respondent's bar in 2008, allegedly as a reprisal for complaining about bleach fumes.

In 2010, the friend returned to the bar and was asked to leave; the applicant intervened and was also ejected.

The Tribunal found that the friend was barred in 2008 due to her continuous rude and demanding behaviour toward staff, not because of her disability or accommodation requests.

Consequently, the decision to eject the applicant in 2010 for associating with her was not discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

La requérante allègue avoir été victime de discrimination fondée sur la race, la couleur, le lieu d'origine, l'origine ethnique et l'âge lorsque l'intimé ne lui a pas offert de poste d'infirmière autorisée ni de place dans un programme de mentorat.

Le Tribunal a tenu une audience sommaire pour déterminer si la requête avait une chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

Le Tribunal a conclu que l'intimé avait offert deux autres stages à la requérante qu'elle a refusés, et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve suggérant que le refus du poste d'infirmière était lié à un motif discriminatoire.

La requête a été rejetée car elle n'avait aucune chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged age discrimination and reprisal after his health benefits ceased at age 65.

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

The Tribunal found that section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code provides a complete defence to the age discrimination claim regarding benefits, meaning it has no reasonable prospect of success unless the applicant's constitutional challenge to that section succeeds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the respondent threatened or took adverse action against the applicant when it negotiated a bridge funding agreement with his union.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of marital status, challenging a judicial decision that compelled him to pay post-secondary education costs for his child.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that judicial decisions are protected by adjudicative immunity and do not constitute 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions in response, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a 19-year-old student, was hired as a part-time team member at the respondent's restaurant while five months pregnant.

Shortly after disclosing her pregnancy to management, her employment was terminated.

The respondent alleged she was fired for insubordination and lateness.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence regarding the alleged insubordination to be inconsistent and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondent's management was ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging discrimination based on race and colour by a mediator during a mediation session.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the mediator may be protected by adjudicative immunity and that the application failed to identify specific discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to amend the application to name the proper respondents, provide submissions on why adjudicative immunity should not apply, detail the allegations against the mediator's manager, and clarify the licensing status of his representative.

The applicants, a family of tenants, alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, race, and gender, as well as reprisal, after the landlord deactivated their key fob for non-payment, temporarily preventing the disabled minor applicant from accessing the pool for therapy.

The applicants also alleged the superintendent used a racial slur during a subsequent altercation, and that the property manager engaged in reprisal by refusing to discuss the tenancy with the tenant's husband.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the fob deactivation was strictly due to non-payment, preferring the superintendent's evidence that no slurs were used, and concluding the property manager's refusal to speak with the husband was a standard privacy practice requiring the named tenant's authorization.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned for failing to file pre-hearing materials.

She claimed illness prevented her from complying but provided no medical evidence and failed to contact the Tribunal when directed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish compelling and extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination more than five years after his employment was terminated.

He had initially pursued a civil action for wrongful dismissal that included a claim for damages under the Human Rights Code, which was struck by the court in July 2012.

The applicant waited another 51 weeks before filing his application with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the civil action might explain the delay up to July 2012, there was no good faith explanation for the subsequent 51-week delay in filing the application.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, and age after being disciplined by the school board following an internal complaint.

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

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to his race, place of origin, or age, merely asserting that discrimination was the only possible reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove discrimination on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The employment standards officer had rendered a decision, but the respondents opposed reactivation as they intended to seek a review of that decision before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate at this time, directing the respondents to confirm within 14 days that they had commenced the review, failing which the application would be reactivated.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's discrimination application pending the outcome of his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated due to his disability, while the respondents claimed he was laid off due to lack of work.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB proceeding would likely not determine the core human rights issue of whether the termination was discriminatory.

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

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant emailed the respondent's counsel and the Tribunal stating he was unwell and anxious, and indicating he would not attend.

He did not request an adjournment and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had decided not to continue with his application and dismissed it as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services because of disability.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file witness lists, statements, and documents, and later to confirm if he would be testifying and provide a will-say statement.

The applicant failed to comply with these orders or explain his non-compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, a person with a disability who relies on a motorized wheelchair, alleged that the respondent transit commission discriminated against him by requiring paratransit rides to be booked exactly three days in advance.

The applicant argued this policy denied him equal access to public transportation compared to able-bodied users of the conventional transit system.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he was capable of using accessible conventional transit but lived in an area not serviced by it, making his disadvantage related to residence rather than disability.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if a prima facie case were established, the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship, as expanding the booking window would require significant administrative resources and reduce the overall number of trips provided.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a Small Claims Court action based on the same facts.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual events underlying both proceedings and concluded that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action.