HRTO 2014

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request to dismiss and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response to the Application despite receiving notice and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided to proceed without the respondents' participation, deeming them to have waived their right to notice and to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to allow its business to continue operating with appropriate staffing numbers.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent's failure to ensure adequate staffing levels over the four months since the hearing dates were set did not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging unfair discipline by the respondent police services board.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior release, or alternatively to defer it pending an ongoing Police Services Act proceeding.

At the preliminary hearing, both parties opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found that the concurrent proceedings involved overlapping facts and allegations, raising the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Police Services Act proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The applicant argued that the special diet schedule failed to recognize his environmental and chemical sensitivity disorders and that the allowance amounts were too low.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish discrimination under the test set out in Ball v. Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

They argued that the special diet schedule failed to recognize their environmental and chemical sensitivities, that the allowance amounts were discriminatorily low, and that the removal of their grandparented status was discriminatory.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicants could establish discrimination under the test set out in Ball v. Ontario.

The applicant, an employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of disability, claiming a failure to accommodate.

The applicant's union requested to intervene in the application, arguing it advocated on her behalf regarding modified duties.

The applicant opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, applying the presumption that a union has an interest in a human rights dispute dealing with terms or conditions of a represented applicant's work.

The applicant, a constituency assistant, was dismissed after his spouse was elected as the MPP for the riding, pursuant to a rule prohibiting MPPs from employing their spouses.

He filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status against his union for failing to grieve his dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the 2011 dismissal were filed outside the one-year time limit.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the union's decision not to grieve was based on legal advice regarding the interaction of the collective agreement and the spousal employment prohibition, which is consistent with section 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his dismissal from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the dismissal was also the subject of an ongoing grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the risk of inconsistent results and misuse of resources.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to make a severance payment within the two-week timeframe specified in the Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent argued the delay occurred because the applicant requested reimbursement for medical receipts after the settlement was signed, which required him to remain on the payroll and delayed the severance processing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent informed the applicant of the delay and that the parties effectively amended the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed.

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

She argued that the hearing was held by telephone, she had difficulty expressing herself in English, and there was a lack of evidence production.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not raised any communication issues during the hearing, did not request an interpreter beforehand, and failed to provide details regarding the alleged lack of production.

The applicant did not meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that one respondent appeared to be federally regulated and the application lacked specific allegations.

The applicant was directed to confirm his intent to proceed and provide submissions.

When the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the request within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it had an interest as the bargaining agent and knowledge of the facts.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union almost always has an interest in participating in Tribunal proceedings involving its members and the workplace.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial notice and a subsequent direction.

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

The applicant, an employee with permanent and temporary medical restrictions, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the employer's modified work program.

The Tribunal found that the 'four weeks on, eight weeks off' cycle and the refusal to allow the applicant to bump a more senior employee did not constitute discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant experienced discrimination when he was unable to access income replacement benefits while sent home under the cycle, as well as from the operation of a '90 day rule' that caused him to lose ownership of his standard job, and a rule preventing him from bidding on temporary positions.

The employer was ordered to pay compensation for lost income, and both respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

The applicant sought orders to define issues, address document admissibility, vary a prior production order, compel further production regarding systemic racism, and amend the style of cause.

The Tribunal denied the request to vary the prior production order and refused further production, noting the application was not framed as a systemic challenge.

The remaining procedural requests were deferred to the adjudicator at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant, a taxi driver, alleged employment discrimination based on race and origin against the respondent cab company.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested an extension of time, an ocular inspection of the dispatch system, and the production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the extension of time for lack of explanation, deferred the ocular inspection request to the hearing, and denied the document production request because the respondent did not possess or control the requested records.

The applicant alleged age discrimination in employment against the Department of National Defence, claiming he was pressured into retirement by his employer, the Commissionaires Great Lakes, at the respondent's instance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on two grounds: first, the respondent is a federal undertaking over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction; second, the applicant was never employed by the respondent and therefore cannot claim discrimination in employment against it.