HRTO 2014

The applicant, a battery technician, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being terminated by the respondents upon advising them he intended to file a WSIB claim for a workplace injury.

The respondents claimed the applicant abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence more credible, concluding that he was terminated because of his injury and intention to file a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal held that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability in employment and directed that the hearing be resumed to address remedy.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, family status, and association after her grandchild was apprehended by a children's aid society, resulting in restricted access.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The allegations regarding the apprehension were previously dismissed in a related application by the child's mother, making this claim an abuse of process with no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal further found it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the ongoing court proceedings regarding custody and access, and the applicant provided no evidence to support her claims of differential treatment.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The Board had granted the applicant EI benefits after finding he had just cause to resign, applying the statutory benefit of the doubt because the evidence of sexual harassment and discrimination was equally balanced.

The Tribunal held that the Board did not actually resolve the conflicting evidence or make a finding of fact regarding the harassment.

Furthermore, it would be unfair to preclude the application based on a prior proceeding where the applicant was successful and had no right of appeal.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was ordered to proceed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

After the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond might result in abandonment, the applicant still did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding an advertising contract with the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not identify specific acts of discrimination or reprisal linked to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant failed to assert facts supporting a claim of reprisal or linking the contract dispute to his disability.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision (2014 HRTO 904) that dismissed his discrimination application.

In his request, the applicant expressed disagreement with the decision and reiterated his views on the relationship between the Ontario Human Rights Code and international human rights declarations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination (pregnancy) requested an interim order for the production of documents from the respondent and a third party (Rogers Communications), as well as an order to amend her application to include a claim for damages for injury to dignity and a request for human rights training.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal granted the requests, ordering the respondent to produce relevant text and instant messages, ordering Rogers Communications to produce call detail records at the applicant's expense, and permitting the amendment of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, claiming that jail guards and police officers were in a conflict of interest and should not participate in a baseball league.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to Code grounds.

Finding no connection between the allegations and the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age, disability, and reprisal, claiming that the respondents continued to sponsor a baseball league from which he was expelled.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to the Code.

Finding no connection between the respondents' alleged actions and the cited Code grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an order for the production of documents related to workplace investigations, electronic files, and vacation pay.

The respondent confirmed that no formal investigation occurred and provided the only existing meeting note, along with a summary of the applicant's vacation pay.

The Tribunal denied the request for further production, noting that the applicant could renew her request for specific vacation pay documents if necessary after reviewing the summary.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred Application following the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The request was filed within the 60-day period required by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the Application to be reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of Education, alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding the distribution of religious materials in public schools and the operation of a Protestant separate school board.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the actions of school boards outside his jurisdiction based merely on his status as a taxpayer.

Furthermore, the challenge to the Protestant separate school board was barred by s. 19(1) of the Human Rights Code and s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the Ministry of Education could not be held liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of independent local school boards.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and gender identity after the respondent required her to pay the rent arrears of her former employer before entering into a commercial lease.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a summary hearing and the production of documents regarding the respondent's lease arrangements with a white male comparator, the Tribunal found it could not conclude the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss was denied and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

After considering the materials and oral submissions, the Tribunal found that it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success, despite the application largely relating to wrongful dismissal.

The application was directed to continue to the next stage in the hearing process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure of photographs taken by the respondent and un-redacted police reports regarding incidents at their shared apartment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the photographs, finding them arguably relevant to the respondent's claim that the applicant was a difficult tenant.

The Tribunal denied the request for the police reports, directing the applicant to first exhaust available options by requesting un-redacted copies directly from the police.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on family status against her employer, a bus transportation company.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the corporate respondent is a federal undertaking and therefore falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent provides regular cross-border transportation services and is a federal undertaking pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also filed a union grievance regarding the termination.

The respondent agreed with deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a refugee with mental health problems, alleged discrimination based on disability and receipt of public assistance after being evicted from the respondent's transitional housing program.

The respondent, a non-profit organization providing temporary housing to refugees, evicted the applicant after nearly two years to make room for other clients.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the eviction from a transitional housing program with limited capacity was not arbitrary and did not amount to a Code violation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, the administrator of his employer's long-term disability benefits, discriminated against him on the basis of disability, marital status, and association, and reprised against him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent was not the applicant's employer and did not control his terms of employment or accommodation.

Furthermore, there was no evidence to support the allegations of conspiracy, discrimination, or reprisal.

The applicant, a Seventh Day Adventist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and sought an interim remedy to leave work two hours early on Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that the interim remedy was necessary to further the remedial objects of the Human Rights Code or that the balance of harm favoured granting the request.