HRTO 2014

The applicant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to personal business.

The request was made less than two weeks prior to the hearing dates and outside the 14-day period specified in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to disclose any extraordinary circumstances to justify an adjournment as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal held a remedy hearing following a finding that the respondent breached the applicant's rights by failing to accommodate her chemical sensitivity.

The applicant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the objective seriousness of the respondent's conduct in ignoring her accommodation requests.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent's managerial employees to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

At the hearing, the applicant advised that one respondent had filed for bankruptcy and the corporate respondent was no longer in operation.

The applicant subsequently requested that the application be withdrawn against the corporate respondent and did not take steps to lift the stay against the bankrupt respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the corporate respondent and dismissed as abandoned against the individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the application, which alleged discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, and disability.

The NOID was issued because the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination by the respondents.

Although the applicant did not provide submissions in response, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.

The application was ordered to be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a claim of reprisal, increase the damages claimed, and amend her witness statement.

The personal respondents objected, arguing prejudice due to the proximity of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding that while adding a reprisal claim close to the hearing date was prejudicial, this prejudice could be alleviated by adjourning the hearing.

The Tribunal noted that allowing the amendment was more efficient than requiring the applicant to file a separate application for reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in the workplace by a co-worker.

The respondent had previously been criminally convicted of sexually assaulting the applicant during the incident in question.

Relying on the criminal court's findings of fact to prevent an abuse of process, the Tribunal found that the respondent's actions constituted egregious sexual harassment under section 7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $45,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $6,760 for lost wages resulting from her resignation following the assault.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Matachewan First Nation.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (alcohol addiction).

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was previously settled during a grievance mediation/arbitration.

The applicant claimed he did not understand the settlement due to intoxication.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence unreliable, concluded he understood and accepted the settlement terms, and dismissed the application as the substance had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent pressured him to work while ill and failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested the dismissal of allegations relating to events that occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the timeliness issue, finding that evidence was required to determine whether the earlier events formed a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal also issued directions for document disclosure and the upcoming mediation-adjudication.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to delay.

The applicant disagreed with the original decision and restated points made previously.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts, lack of notice, conflict with jurisprudence, or other factors that would permit reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondents reprised against him based on his association with another employee who had filed an application.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and fell under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments provided further particulars to allegations already raised in the original application, were not untimely, and would not cause prejudice as the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed two identical human rights applications against his employer and manager.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

The respondents supported consolidation, while the applicant opposed it, proposing they be heard consecutively.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that the identical allegations would require the same evidence, and failing to consolidate could result in duplicative proceedings and inconsistent results.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file, the removal of the personal respondents, and an extension of time to file a response.

The Tribunal granted limited disclosure of the medical file to the respondents, finding it arguably relevant to the accommodation issues raised.

The request to remove the personal respondents was deferred, and the extension of time to file a response was granted.

The applicant, a part-time restaurant worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after presenting a doctor's note.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had requested an early paycheque before seeing a doctor and did not effectively communicate her need for medical leave or present the doctor's note to the respondents.

Due to language barriers and miscommunication, the respondents believed the applicant was quitting when she demanded her full pay and refused a cash advance.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents neither knew of nor perceived the applicant's disability, and did not terminate her employment.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the individual respondent's father was in serious medical condition in India.

The applicant opposed the request without providing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the extraordinary circumstances and the fact that the respondent was unrepresented, but directed the respondent to file medical documentation upon his return.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request to call a witness by telephone until the hearing is rescheduled.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided notice to both parties.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent attended the scheduled hearing.

The adjudicator deemed the application abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend or communicate with the Tribunal, and dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's request, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board breached the Human Rights Code on the basis of age when his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found to be unconstitutional.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) requested to intervene in the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that OCUFA has a significant interest in the issues and will make a special contribution to the case given its longstanding advocacy regarding mandatory retirement and the rights of faculty working past age 65.

The applicant alleged that Hockey Canada discriminated against him on the basis of age by charging a flat-rate insurance fee for minor hockey players, arguing that younger players subsidize older players who have a higher risk of injury.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence would not establish that the flat-rate fee disadvantaged him because of his age, nor could he identify when younger players stop subsidizing older players.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.