HRTO 2013

The applicant alleged that his employer and union failed to accommodate his disability following a heart attack, and that the union discriminated against him in a job competition.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to October 2010 had already been dealt with in a previous application and were barred by section 45.1 of the Code and the doctrine of abuse of process.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success, as the medical documentation indicated the applicant was totally disabled and unable to work, making accommodation impossible.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance regarding some of the same issues, specifically relating to being placed on pregnancy leave instead of sick leave.

The applicant and her union opposed deferral, arguing the human rights application raised broader issues.

The respondent supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped significantly and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her application as abandoned after she failed to attend a teleconference summary hearing.

The applicant argued she was treated differently from the respondent, as the Tribunal had previously contacted the respondent's counsel when he failed to attend a hearing, but did not contact the applicant when she failed to attend.

The Tribunal acknowledged its errors and found that the need to ensure both parties are treated similarly outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new summary hearing was ordered.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant informed the Tribunal that he was unable to return to Canada from Iran due to travel difficulties and requested that his application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent school principal requested an order directing the applicants' parents to provide written permission to access and disclose the applicants' Ontario Student Records (OSR) for an upcoming summary hearing.

The applicants' parents agreed only on the condition that other parents and teachers also provide consent.

The Tribunal found the applicants' conditions unhelpful and directed the parents to provide written permission, noting that failure to do so could result in the applications being dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex, approximately one year after her dismissal.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions or establish a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to participate indicated the application had been abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file hearing materials by a specified date.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the matter fell within federal, not provincial, jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the request within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents subjected him to reprisals regarding his membership in a vocational association, specifically that his contract was terminated without notice and disciplinary action was pursued against him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify how the respondents subjected him to reprisals within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to explain how the respondents retaliated against him for claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding it plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against two respondents.

One respondent, Intercon Security Services, failed to file a response by the revised deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding party of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the non-responding party a final 14-day extension to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated shortly before she was scheduled to return from a medical leave of absence.

The respondents maintained that the termination was solely due to a restructuring of the employer's retail operations that began prior to the applicant's leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondents established the termination was a legitimate business decision and that the applicant's disability was not a factor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found a breach of the Human Rights Code but did not award lost wages.

The applicant argued that the failure to award lost wages did not make her whole.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the original decision found the applicant was unable to perform the essential tasks of any available position even with accommodation, meaning there was no entitlement to lost wages.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was merely re-arguing her case and presented no valid basis for reconsideration.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent employer, Bell Technical Solutions Inc. (BTS), brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application on the basis that its labour relations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the derivative federal jurisdiction test and found that BTS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Canada, performs work that is integral to Bell's core federal telecommunications undertaking.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that BTS's labour relations are federally regulated, the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding her employment and its termination.

The applicant had also commenced a Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, raised the issue of deferral.

The respondents filed submissions supporting deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action to avoid inconsistent decisions on facts and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the accommodation of his needs during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

The respondents requested the removal of two individual respondents, a test centre supervisor and a member of the respondent's misconduct subcommittee.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the individuals' actions, there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any infringement, and no compelling reason existed to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The requests were granted and the individual respondents were removed as parties.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the remaining allegations in a human rights application and to remove the individually named respondents.

The applicant, a university professor, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on race, ancestry, and sex.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining allegations, finding it premature to do so without hearing evidence, as a previous interim decision had already preserved them.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the individual respondents, as the allegations against them were central to the dispute.

The motion was dismissed and directions were given for a teleconference hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file documents and a witness list.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or any submissions.

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