HRTO 2014

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin by requiring graduates of non-accredited dental programs to undergo a more onerous certification process than graduates of accredited programs.

He also alleged that the requirement to write certification examinations in English disadvantaged him.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the differential treatment was based on the accreditation status of the educational institution, not place of origin, and that the applicant failed to establish that the English language requirement disadvantaged him.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a settlement regarding parking accommodations.

The Tribunal found that no settlement had been agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, as required by section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to accept her complaints against two doctors.

The College sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success due to statutory immunity and the inadmissibility of its records under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the first doctor, finding that the necessary documents would be inadmissible.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the second doctor to proceed, as the applicant intended to rely on oral testimony about an investigator's statements, which is not barred by the Act.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her by refusing to allow an uncertified service dog to attend school.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a parallel civil claim in small claims court and had signed a full and final release settling the matter.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim raised substantially the same facts and issues, and that the signed release further supported dismissal.

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) as the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds against Health Canada, a residential complex, and an individual doctor.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Health Canada is a federal government department outside its jurisdiction, and that the allegations against the other respondents lacked any connection to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing its substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing these issues, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple directions and a Request for Summary Hearing, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former member of the respondent housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, family status, and association.

Following an earlier interim decision that dismissed allegations regarding subsidy calculations, the remaining issue concerned whether the applicant experienced discriminatory differential treatment regarding repair requests.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide particularized witness statements or any evidence linking the alleged repair delays to prohibited Code grounds.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The applicant argued she was not given a fair opportunity at the arbitration hearing and that the Tribunal would be more expeditious.

The Tribunal noted that the arbitration was already seven days in, and the union had indicated a desire to withdraw the grievance, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that doing so in the middle of the arbitration would undermine the purpose of the initial deferral.

The applicant alleged that her former landlord and the Toronto Police Services Board discriminated against her with respect to housing and police services based on her mental health.

After hearing the applicant's direct evidence, the Tribunal initiated a summary hearing to determine if the allegations against the landlord had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the claim that the landlord arbitrarily applied mental health stereotypes to the applicant.

The landlord's actions, including calling the police and issuing an eviction notice citing fear for her safety, were found to be based on the escalating conflict between the parties rather than discriminatory stereotyping.

The allegations against the landlord were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, while the application against the Police Services Board was directed to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the WSIB's calculation of his earnings following a workplace injury in 2000.

The WSIB's decision was made in 2002.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 12-year delay in pursuing his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application over 15 months after the decision was issued.

The Tribunal's rules require such requests to be filed within 30 days.

The applicant cited deteriorating mental and physical health as the reason for the delay.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to support that the applicant was incapable of filing a timely request and denied the request for reconsideration due to the significant delay.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists prior to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that removed the personal respondent as a party to the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as she provided no new facts or evidence and was merely attempting to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) against her former employer and manager.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual manager as a respondent and to correct the corporate respondent's name.

The Tribunal applied the established factors for removing personal respondents, noting the corporate respondent assumed liability and had the ability to remedy any Code violations.

As the applicant did not oppose the request, the Tribunal granted the motion, removing the individual respondent and amending the corporate respondent's name.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and place of origin, claiming she was assigned heavy work that led to a workplace injury.

The application was filed more than two and a half years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued she was unaware of the one-year limitation period and had relied on her union and a legal clinic.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and reliance on a union grievance did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay, and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and discrimination on the basis of age by two personal respondents in the workplace.

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

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, the conduct of the respondents—which included shrugging off complaints and telling the applicant he was not a baby—did not amount to a Code violation.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to allow her service dog on its specialized transit service, TransHelp.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to be provided with TransHelp accessible services as quickly as possible.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested interim remedy was unrelated to the allegations in the Application, which focused on the service dog rather than her subsequent disqualification from the transit service.

The applicant, who alleged he has a gambling dependency, filed a human rights application claiming that the respondents' online brokerage services discriminated against him by allowing margin trading, which encouraged him to gamble.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no allegations of discrimination against one respondent and no evidence that the applicant had ever informed the other respondent of his disability or made a Code-based request for accommodation.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application, leading the Tribunal to issue an interim decision deeming them to have waived their right to participate.

The respondents subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to reverse that decision and permit them to file a late Response.

They explained that the delay was caused by awaiting approval for the retention of counsel from their insurer's legal committee.

The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and, in the interests of fairness and due process, set aside the previous order and allowed the respondents to participate.