HRTO 2013

The applicant, a driver/mover, suffered a workplace injury and was subsequently denied modified duties by the respondent employer.

The respondent argued that it was a federally regulated undertaking and that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove it was federally regulated and that the application was timely because a de facto termination occurred within one year of filing.

On the merits, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed to meet both the procedural and substantive components of its duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and its management was directed to complete human rights training.

The applicant, a black Commissionaire, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour.

He claimed his supervisor made inappropriate comments and gestures, that he was unfairly sent home pending a work permit renewal, that a harassment investigation and resulting discipline were discriminatory, and that black employees were segregated and denied access to job postings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for any of the allegations, as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's race or colour.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application against the union and its president.

The original decision found that blog posts by the union president, which criticized the applicant using sexist stereotypes, did not constitute workplace harassment under the Human Rights Code because they were protected by freedom of expression and association in the context of union-management relations.

The applicant and the intervening Ontario Human Rights Commission argued the Tribunal made fundamental errors in balancing these competing rights and denied procedural fairness.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no denial of procedural fairness, and no error in its balancing of the competing rights.

In a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal ordered that 'Centre de coupe et pliage' would be removed as a respondent if no party objected within 14 days.

As no objections were received, the Tribunal ordered the party removed from the proceeding.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal overlooked important evidence regarding three specific job competitions and that he was denied natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case or raise new facts that could have been presented at the summary hearing, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by co-workers in 2009, discriminatory comments by a manager in 2010, and a false complaint leading to her removal from a work site.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2009 as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith despite the applicant's claims of mental health issues.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against several individual respondents and the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was allowed to proceed only against the employer and one manager regarding the 2010 discriminatory comments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a parallel claim at the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant submitted that her Ministry of Labour claim only concerned pay in lieu of notice under the Employment Standards Act, not the reason for her termination.

The Tribunal found no risk of inconsistent decisions and directed that the processing of the application not be deferred.

The applicant, a part-time bookkeeper, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her health-related absences following a heart attack, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent maintained that the termination was solely due to the applicant's poor work performance, including significant bookkeeping errors and an inability to provide required financial reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate, ongoing concerns about the applicant's performance and had decided to terminate her employment prior to her heart attack.

The Application was dismissed as the Tribunal concluded the termination was not tainted by discriminatory considerations.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the extended deadline.

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

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

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

After the arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no discrimination, the applicant sought to proceed with the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration was another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to comply could result in the matter proceeding without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and disability while incarcerated in a provincial correctional facility, filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application due to her precarious and worsening medical condition, including stage four terminal cancer.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's health issues constituted urgent circumstances that could affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application.

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

Two of the three respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondents to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions by the deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and was incomplete.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions on the jurisdiction issues despite multiple extensions and warnings, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision granting an extension.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding continue without the respondent's participation, deemed the respondent to have waived its rights to notice or participation, and deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application.

The applicant was granted time to file additional materials regarding remedies.

The applicant, who was residing in Israel, requested to participate in his human rights hearing by telephone.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's credibility would be a significant issue regarding his work performance and alleged termination for taking a disability-related leave.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondent to call a witness despite providing late notice, as the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

She 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 warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a 2011 decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant filed the request for reconsideration nine months after the decision was released, citing feeling overwhelmed and a change of address, but admitted to checking her emails regularly.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and failed to explain why the request was not filed within the required 30-day period.