HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated after he reported a work-related injury.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of related proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceedings would likely consider whether the reported injury was a factor in the termination, creating a risk of concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending a decision by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights applications against his landlord and the City of Ottawa following a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and reprisal, arguing that the adjudicator erred in finding no link between his disability and the condition of the walkway, and in finding no reprisal regarding his eviction.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the original decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure, as he did not provide a sufficient basis to connect the respondents' actions to his disability or the assertion of his Code rights.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application, which the Tribunal granted in a prior interim decision.

The Tribunal subsequently discovered that a response from the respondent City of Kingston had been misplaced and was not considered.

Upon reviewing the misplaced response, which consented to the amendment subject to certain conditions, the Tribunal confirmed its prior order allowing the amendment, while acknowledging the respondent's caveat that it was not admitting the factual allegations.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Windsor Police Service and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability, association, and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the Windsor police refused to criminally charge a lawyer and misdirected him, and that the OIPRD improperly closed his subsequent complaint, because they perceived him to have schizophrenia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could point to no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground or establishing an intention to reprise.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after his employment was terminated shortly after he was asked to complete a security assessment form.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing the termination was due to a global downsizing.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the issues raised required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve the competing factual claims.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the remedies sought in her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent filed an RFOP requesting to defer the application pending the completion of related proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her remedies.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues between the Tribunal and WSIAT proceedings, which raised the potential for inconsistent findings.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on colour and age contrary to the Human Rights Code after being detained by police and charged with trespass.

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

The Tribunal found that the police officer's actions were based on a property owner's complaint about two young males entering a wooded area suspected of marijuana cultivation, the applicant's unusual explanation of looking for a Sasquatch, and his use of a rental car, rather than his age or colour.

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

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Tribunal, sought leave to proceed with a new application alleging that the respondent cancelled his insurance contract based on his ancestry and place of origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any connection between the cancellation and a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, relying only on his assumption that no other reason existed.

As the applicant did not satisfy the onus to show the application was a legitimate assertion of his rights, leave to proceed was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, place of origin, and gender identity regarding events from 2005.

The Tribunal had previously dismissed two similar applications by the applicant concerning the same events.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and after reviewing the applicant's written submissions, concluded that the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because its subject-matter was substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission and withdrawn by the applicant.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following a workplace injury and subsequent termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's related WSIB claim.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding would likely deal with the main issue raised in the application, namely whether the applicant's injury was a factor in her termination.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending a decision by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application to add new allegations of sexual harassment, increase her damages claims, and add a remedy of reinstatement.

She also sought disclosure of her former manager's personnel file and an incident report.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments regarding remedies as they caused no prejudice, but denied the addition of new allegations due to prejudice and delay.

The requests for disclosure were dismissed as the documents were either not arguably relevant or overly broad and prejudicial.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that his termination violated the collective agreement and that the respondent relied on outdated discipline.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's allegations related to a labour relations issue outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and that he failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the filing of documents and witness lists.

The applicant subsequently emailed the Tribunal stating he would not attend the scheduled hearing for financial reasons and would accept a default judgment.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging disability discrimination after her related grievance arbitration concluded and was subsequently quashed on judicial review.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate because it was filed over six months after the Divisional Court decision, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator, who had concurrent jurisdiction and had rejected the claim of Code-based discrimination.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because some of his witnesses would be out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, which the Tribunal denied as premature given that her conduct was a central issue.

The applicant also requested production of documents, which the Tribunal denied as overly broad and a fishing expedition.

The applicant, who has a mild cognitive impairment resulting from childhood cancer treatments, obtained a law degree from a university in Wales with Third Class Honours.

The respondent refused to recognize his degree because its policy requires a minimum of a Lower Second Class (2:2) standing.

The applicant alleged adverse effect discrimination, arguing his disability prevented him from achieving the required grades.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was accommodated during law school and failed to establish that his lower academic standing was attributable to his disability rather than his refusal to request additional recommended accommodations, such as extra time.

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

He failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including emails and letters warning that failure to respond might result in abandonment.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing, specifically that he was unfairly evicted because the respondent did not like him.

He later amended his application to check off race, colour, and sexual orientation, noting he was a white, heterosexual male.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The applicant's submissions in response did not address the lack of a link to the Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the London Police Services Board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the original decision was wrongly decided and misinterpreted his allegations of discriminatory police conduct.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was merely attempting to reargue issues already decided and failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondents attended and requested dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.