HRTO 2014

The applicant, a police officer, alleged that a negative performance evaluation he received in 2006 was a reprisal for reporting a subordinate's sexual harassment complaint.

He further alleged that the respondent's failure to remove the evaluation from his personnel file in 2011, as agreed during a grievance settlement, constituted an ongoing reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

It found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the failure to remove the evaluation was intentional or connected to his human rights complaint.

The Tribunal also found that the 2006 evaluation was a discrete incident, not a continuing contravention, and dismissed that portion of the application for delay.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite being directed to do so and warned of the consequences.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in a 2013 hiring process after he was interviewed but not hired by the respondent.

He claimed the interview panel, consisting of two Black men, was a trick to discriminate against him, and that questions about a former co-worker indicated reprisal for a 2010 human rights complaint.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success for either the discrimination or reprisal claims.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, noting that while he had filed many applications, he had not inappropriately pursued decided matters or disregarded Tribunal orders in this case.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the disclosure of the last name and contact information of a former co-worker, 'Mike', whom she wished to summons as a witness.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on family status and reprisal after returning from parental leave.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the witness appeared to have relevant evidence and ordered the respondent to disclose the requested information within 14 days.

The applicant requested the reactivation of his human rights application, which alleged discrimination with respect to services based on ethnic origin and disability by the Ontario Disability Support Program and its staff.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of four appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the same underlying issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that deferral should continue to avoid the risk of conflicting determinations on the same facts and issues, and noting that the Social Benefits Tribunal appeals were more advanced.

The respondent requested the dismissal of parts of the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The respondent argued that the applicant's allegation of failure to accommodate her carpal tunnel syndrome was appropriately dealt with by a WSIB decision denying her benefits.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding that the WSIB decision addressed causality, not whether the disability was accommodated.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the reprisal allegation at this stage, directing the applicant to provide further details regarding the alleged reprisal.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, a former Associate Dean, from a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold of compelling reasons to maintain the personal respondent, and noting that the corporate respondent college assumed vicarious liability and had the capacity to implement any potential remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, Nortek Computers Ltd., alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

Shortly before the hearing, Nortek filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings against it.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Nortek's owner as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-stage test from Smyth and dismissed the request, finding no allegations beyond mere speculation that the owner personally violated the Code.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination and reprisal regarding employment due to disability, requested to add the owner and manager of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent.

The applicant argued that the individual respondent was responsible for the refusal to accommodate and the termination, and that the corporate respondent's main asset was facing a court-ordered sale, which could impede recovery of any ordered remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth criteria and granted the request, finding that the allegations supported personal liability, the potential sale of assets provided a compelling reason, and adding the respondent at this stage was fair.

The applicant, a real estate agent, alleged that the respondent, a shareholder in the brokerage and her former romantic partner, sexually solicited her after their relationship ended and reprised against her when she refused.

The applicant claimed the respondent withheld a real estate commission and forced her to pay participation fees as reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence of sexual solicitation not credible and inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

As no sexual solicitation was established, the reprisal claim was also dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of several named personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in hiring based on citizenship, family status, age, and gender identity.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed five individuals against whom no specific allegations were made.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove two personal respondents whose alleged conduct regarding the termination of the applicant's son and the dismissal of the applicant's employment application formed a central issue in the family status discrimination claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability after the respondent transferred her to a different campus.

The respondent requested a deferral because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim sought remedies for human rights infringements based on the same facts as the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 34(11)(a) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation.

The respondent and the intervenor union argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a Memorandum of Agreement containing a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he signed it under extreme duress and lacked the mental capacity to understand its consequences.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood he was signing a settlement agreement that severed his employment, and that the pressure he faced did not amount to legal duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged age discrimination because the respondent denied him post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement note, as he was not yet 50 years old when the agreement was ratified.

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

The Tribunal found that the denial of post-65 benefits complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and is therefore exempt from the Human Rights Code's prohibition on age discrimination under section 25(2.1).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at an event.

The respondent requested a Summary Hearing, asserting it did not organize the event and was incorrectly named.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded that he had no issues against the named respondent and that the application was filed in error.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting the applicant could file a fresh application against the correct respondent within the one-year limitation period.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by a former business partner and her legal counsel during ongoing civil litigation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the allegations relating to the operation of the business were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining allegations because statements made during litigation are protected by absolute privilege, and the conduct of opposing counsel does not fall within a protected social area under the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add E&E Seegmiller Limited and Les Coulas as respondents and to amend her Application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that Les Coulas was already named as a personal respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal added E&E Seegmiller Limited as a corporate respondent because it was the employer of Les Coulas.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her Application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her housing discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision ignored the nature of racial discrimination and her evidence at the summary hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already presented and failed to provide facts supporting her claim that the comment made to her was discriminatory.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as no compelling and extraordinary circumstances existed to outweigh the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding disability accommodation by his employer and several individuals.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same matters.

The Tribunal found that although the remaining grievance alleged a breach of the collective agreement rather than a Code violation, the arbitrator had the jurisdiction to apply human rights law, and deferral was appropriate to avoid conflicting factual determinations.

The request to defer was granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add his former employer as a corporate respondent and to increase the monetary compensation claimed.

The application alleged discrimination based on creed and reprisal.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation against the proposed corporate respondent and that it was fair to add them.

The Tribunal granted the requests to add the corporate respondent and increase the monetary claim, as there was no prejudice to the respondents.