HRTO 2014

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents, as well as six union grievances based on overlapping facts.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated and deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and consolidated the applications to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal also deferred the consolidated applications, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and the union had already referred the grievances to arbitration.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his medical leave and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed or deferred because a grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues was scheduled.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and deferral avoids conflicting determinations.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the Guelph Police Service, an insurance company, and other individuals, alleging discrimination based on race and other grounds during a robbery investigation.

The Tribunal held a teleconference to address jurisdictional and timeliness issues, during which the self-represented applicant behaved inappropriately and hung up.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the police service because they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applications against the remaining respondents were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as they contained only general allegations of unfairness without a nexus to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to a family medical emergency involving its counsel.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, suggesting the respondent retain another lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the family medical circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent's counsel to advise by 4:00 p.m. whether she could attend, failing which an adjournment would be granted and a teleconference scheduled to address preliminary issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The original application alleged discrimination based on disability after library staff threatened to remove her during an incident with another patron.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not disclosed her mental health disability at the time of the incident, meaning the library had no duty to accommodate her on that day.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already decided and had not met the test for reconsideration.

The applicant, a gay Aboriginal man who is deaf, was hired by the respondent landscaping company.

During his brief employment, the owner made egregious sexual and homophobic gestures and comments towards him in front of co-workers.

Shortly after, the applicant was laid off because the owner became frustrated with communicating via notepad and failed to explore other accommodation options.

The Tribunal found the respondent liable for harassment, a poisoned work environment, and discriminatory termination based on disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $8,200 for lost income and $25,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with non-monetary remedies.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay settlement monies on time.

The respondents mailed the cheques two days before the due date, but they were received six days late due to a holiday weekend.

The Tribunal found a contravention occurred but deemed the breach de minimis.

Despite a clause in the settlement agreement stipulating $5,000 in damages for late payment, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code and declined to order a remedy.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal had previously dismissed the respondent's request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent informed the Tribunal that the applicant's union considered the grievance to be resolved.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to defer consideration of the application or to dismiss it under s. 45.1, and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision denying him leave to file an application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant argued the decision was unjust because his submissions from a Request for Order During Proceedings were allegedly not considered.

The Tribunal found that the submissions had been reviewed and considered in the original decision, and the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and requested deferral pending the resolution of a Ministry of Labour complaint under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent consented to deferral but requested that the Tribunal first address its request to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in both proceedings were almost identical and that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal declined to address the preliminary request to dismiss prior to deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his participation in a scheduled hearing and to provide documents and witness summaries.

The Tribunal warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Having received no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated and the respondent reported her to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The respondent requested the reprisal allegation be dismissed in advance of the hearing, arguing it was statutorily obligated to report the termination and protected by immunity under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the statutory immunity applies only to reports made in good faith.

As the applicant alleged the report was made in bad faith, the claim could proceed to a hearing, despite the evidentiary challenges posed by the inadmissibility of the report itself.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts against a travel insurance company and two airlines.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding its jurisdiction over the airlines.

The Tribunal found that airlines are federal undertakings under s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed as against the respondent airlines.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was improperly terminated for job abandonment after a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding whether his injury was work-related.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no significant danger of conflicting decisions because the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the discrimination claim regardless of where the injury occurred.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide a letter of apology, proof of human rights training, and contact information for the respondent owner's spouse within the agreed timelines.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the apology and proof of training on time.

However, because the respondent had since provided all the required items and the applicant stated she did not seek any further remedy, the Tribunal concluded the agreement had been met and ordered no further remedy.

The claimant, a minor acting through a litigation guardian, filed a human rights application against an independent school.

The application was brought on the claimant's behalf by a paralegal firm, which charged a fee for doing so.

The Tribunal held that while a legal representative may charge a fee for representation, a person or organization bringing an application on behalf of another under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code acts in a fiduciary capacity to facilitate access to justice.

Charging a fee to act as the applicant undermines this legislative purpose and breaches the fiduciary obligation.

The Tribunal removed the paralegal firm as the applicant.

The applicant, an Ontario Disability Support Program recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to reimburse him for the costs of obtaining a prescribed medication in the United States.

The medication was no longer manufactured or available in Canada.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not establish that the refusal to fund an unapproved, out-of-country medication was linked to his disability or constituted differential treatment under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reopen his file after his reprisal claim was dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code based on an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The applicant noted that the ESO decision was under appeal to the OLRB.

The Tribunal decided to reconsider its previous interim decision on its own initiative under Rule 26.9, noting that the dismissal was made without affording the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

A teleconference hearing was ordered to rehear the respondents' s. 45.1 request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing that he would not receive necessary medical and payroll documents in time.

The respondent opposed the request, asserting that the medical issues were irrelevant as the dismissal was for economic reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding it premature and speculative, and noted that document production delays could be addressed through other means such as allowing late production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by a former co-worker.

The respondent argued the application was filed out of time, as she had quit her employment more than a year before the application was filed.

The applicant contended the respondent remained an employee because she received maternity benefits.

The Tribunal found the employment relationship ended when the respondent walked off the job, and receiving maternity benefits did not extend her employment status.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanation that he delayed filing because he was waiting for another proceeding involving his spouse to conclude.

The application was dismissed for delay.