HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged racial discrimination and reprisal by police officers who responded to a physical altercation between the applicant and a bank branch manager.

The applicant claimed the officers immediately took the branch manager's side and arrested her without investigation due to her race.

The Tribunal found that the officers conducted a proper investigation, had reasonable grounds to charge the applicant with assault, but exercised discretion to only issue a caution.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim regarding a follow-up phone call, finding the officer's advice not to pursue cross-charges was sound and not an adverse action.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and scheduled a case management conference call to determine next steps for the applicant.

The applicant, an employee with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after her disability benefits were denied by the plan administrator.

The applicant's union also filed grievances alleging breaches of the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code regarding the same denial of benefits.

The Tribunal, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the pending arbitration hearing, exercised its discretion to defer consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent university to produce all members of its Admissions Committee as witnesses, to produce all related documents, and to exclude these witnesses from the hearing and prohibit them from discussing their testimony.

The respondent asserted privilege over the communications.

The Tribunal ordered that witnesses will be excluded from the hearing room when the hearing resumes, but declined to prohibit them from speaking prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file submissions supporting its claim of privilege before deciding on the production of documents and compellability of witnesses.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred because she had two pending union grievances whose subject matter overlapped with the application.

The applicant provided a Memorandum of Agreement showing the grievances were withdrawn.

As there were no longer any pending grievances, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they wished to participate in mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the corporate respondent, a federally-incorporated not-for-profit that collects and analyzes data about First Nations peoples.

The respondents argued the organization fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(6) (Census and Statistics) or s. 91(24) (Indians) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the organization's data analysis activities did not constitute First Nations governance, nor did they fall exclusively under the federal statistics power.

The Tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction to process the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that further information was required from the respondent and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre was not able to represent him.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's requests for orders compelling witnesses and document production until after his evidence is heard.

The applicant was directed to bring his pre-hearing documents and a recording to the hearing.

The applicant requested the re-activation of his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent WSIB proceedings regarding his workplace injury and subsequent termination.

The applicant argued that excessive delays in the WSIB appeals process warranted re-activation.

The Tribunal reviewed the principles of deferral in the context of the complex WSIB system, noting that while indefinite deferral can cause prejudice, the WSIB proceeding might still address the substance of the application.

The Tribunal ordered that the application remain deferred until a decision is reached by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer, with leave to request re-activation if further unreasonable delay occurs.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent, J.C., from an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent was alleged to be liable for the same conduct and there was no issue regarding its ability to respond to or remedy the alleged infringement.

Finding no compelling reason to keep the individual respondent as a party, the Tribunal granted the request and removed J.C. from the proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because she was subject to a 12-month probation order in the United States that prevented her from leaving the State of Michigan.

The respondents objected, noting the delay and the applicant's failure to notify the Tribunal promptly.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that denying it would effectively end the applicant's rights, and rescheduled the hearing for the earliest available dates after the probation order expired.

Following a decision upholding their human rights applications regarding discrimination based on the use of a service animal, the applicants requested that the Tribunal anonymize their identities in the decision.

Although the request was made after the final decision was issued, the Tribunal treated it as a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the disclosure of sensitive mental health information, including suicidal ideation and involuntary hospitalization, warranted anonymizing the applicants, witnesses, respondents, and the service animal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in a job competition more than one year after the incident.

He argued the delay was in good faith because he had pursued the matter through a union grievance and a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that pursuing other legal remedies before turning to the Tribunal does not normally constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

Prior to the application, the respondent initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and obtained an Initial Order staying all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether he intends to pursue the application and to provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay, including whether he has sought leave of the Superior Court to lift the stay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration related to the same facts.

The applicant opposed the deferral, while the respondent supported it.

The Tribunal found a clear overlap in the factual issues, specifically the termination of the applicant's employment, and noted that the grievance procedure was well advanced.

To avoid duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on sex and marital status.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant vacated her rental unit, making the application approximately six and a half months late.

The applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as ignorance of the law is not a valid explanation and she did not file promptly after being advised of her potential claim.

The application was dismissed.

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 by the specified deadline.

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

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove a personal respondent and to strike background allegations from the human rights application.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal declined to strike the background allegations regarding the cause of the applicant's disability, finding they were not alleged Code infringements subject to dismissal for delay under s. 34(1), and held that their relevance and admissibility should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The respondent requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability during a professional engineering licensing interview.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the licensing process was unlikely to result in conflicting decisions, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a professional license.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested remedies arose from the liability issue of whether the respondent adequately addressed the alleged harassment, and that bifurcation would not result in a more expeditious hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex after the respondents posted a Kijiji advertisement seeking a 'female only' server for their fast-food restaurant.

The applicant claimed he was denied consideration for the position because he is male.

The Tribunal found that while the job advertisement itself was discriminatory and violated sections 5 and 23(1) of the Human Rights Code, the applicant failed to establish that he was actually denied consideration for the job because of his gender.

The Tribunal noted the respondents had already hired a male employee before the applicant applied, and found the applicant's job application was not bona fide.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy for the discriminatory ad to be determined subsequently.