HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation in employment.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the alleged harasser as a personal respondent and to clarify the names of the corporate respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code, corporations are not vicariously liable for sexual harassment, making it necessary to name the alleged harasser personally.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to correctly identify the corporate respondents.

The applicants, female soccer players participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding the requirement to play on artificial turf.

They subsequently sought to amend their application to include allegations of reprisal and requested an interim remedy ordering the respondents to cease and desist from threatening reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that a cease and desist order was unnecessary because section 8 of the Human Rights Code already provides clear protection against reprisal.

The applicant, a former Client Support Analyst, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (clinical depression).

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to ongoing performance issues and an inability to get along with her supervisor, and that the decision was made prior to her sick leave and without knowledge of her disability.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her disability was a factor in the termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he left the hearing room mid-hearing.

The applicant argued he left because he felt uncomfortable with the adjudicator and the hearing process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that parties cannot leave a hearing without consequences and must respect the Tribunal's process.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments were in the nature of further particulars, did not add new grounds of discrimination, and would not alter the nature of the hearing in any material way.

The applicants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, reconsideration is only available for final decisions.

A refusal to expedite proceedings is a procedural decision, not a final decision, and is therefore not subject to reconsideration.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination by FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association regarding the use of artificial turf for the 2015 Women's World Cup.

FIFA objected to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing it had not been properly served under the Hague Service Convention.

The Tribunal held that Ontario law does not require compliance with the Hague Service Convention for administrative tribunal proceedings.

Since FIFA acknowledged receipt of the application materials, the Tribunal found that FIFA had received effective legal notice.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the respondent City requested an interim order granting it access to the applicant's personal health information maintained by its Compensation and Benefits Section before filing its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the City could not meaningfully respond to the allegations without access to the medical file to explain its actions.

The Tribunal ordered access subject to strict privacy conditions, granted the City a 35-day extension to file its Response, and denied the City's request for further particulars regarding the systemic discrimination claim.

The applicants, a minor and his parents, filed human rights applications alleging the minor was denied admission to the respondent's preschool program because of the parents' sexual orientation.

The applicants requested anonymization to protect the minor's identity and avoid potential backlash in their rural community.

The respondent opposed the request, citing the open justice principle.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization request, finding that the protection of the child's identity outweighed the principle of open justice.

The Tribunal also ordered the three applications to be consolidated due to the common issues of fact and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discriminatory termination by her former employer, a law firm and its partner.

She had also filed a professional misconduct complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), which was dismissed after investigation for insufficient evidence.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with by the LSUC.

Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Penner, the Tribunal denied the request, finding it would be unfair to preclude the human rights claim given the different purposes of the proceedings, the applicant's lack of personal stake or remedy in the LSUC process, and the public interest in not discouraging regulatory complaints.

The applicant, a housekeeper, alleged she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents claimed she was fired during her probationary period for failing to provide notice of three absences.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding her absences credible and concluded that her pregnancy was a factor in the organizational respondent's decision to terminate her employment.

The application against the individual respondent was dismissed as she did not make the termination decision.

The issue of remedy was deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on the ground of 'record of offences' after being dismissed when his criminal conviction became known to the respondent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify the basis of his claim, noting the Human Rights Code defines 'record of offences' as requiring a pardon for criminal convictions.

The applicant argued the Code covers anyone convicted of an offence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the clear and unambiguous definition in the Code requires a pardon under the Criminal Records Act for criminal offences, which the applicant did not have.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences and reprisal, claiming he was targeted for being a whistleblower regarding a colleague's inappropriate behaviour.

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

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the applicant did not have a record of offences as defined by the Code, and that his whistleblower actions did not constitute a Code-protected claim.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a 98-year-old woman, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability against a condominium corporation and property management company due to delays in repairing a unit she intended to move into.

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

Finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the repair delays to her age or disability beyond mere speculation, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

The applicant sought to amend the remedies requested in his human rights application, withdrawing his request for reinstatement and instead seeking future loss of wages and benefits until age 65 or until he secures alternate employment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, noting that the respondents would have the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant on any new evidence related to the amended remedies.

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

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy, arguing that medical evidence was primarily relevant to damages.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that medical evidence was central to liability issues, including whether the applicant's absence was medically supported and whether he refused reasonable accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to bifurcate, finding that there would likely be an overlap of evidence concerning liability and remedy, making bifurcation inappropriate.

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

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend its Response, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed and reasonable.

The applicant also brought an RFOP seeking production of documents regarding the physical demands of a subway operator position and an order permitting an occupational therapist to enter the respondent's premises to assess those demands.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's request, scheduling a preliminary teleconference to address the scope of the hearing and the order of evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Subsequently, the applicant commenced a civil action against the respondent that included allegations of discrimination and harassment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Code because the civil claim sought remedies for Code infringements and had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction to allow the applicant to amend the civil claim to proceed with the application.

The respondent school board brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's medical records from various health practitioners and institutions, as well as records relating to a disability credit application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that some records fell outside the relevant time frame and raising privacy concerns.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce disability-related diagnostic and assessment records from 2005 to the date the applicant left the school board, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of treatment records or disability credit application documents.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, colour, and sex in his employment.

The allegations were previously heard and dismissed by an arbitrator following a seven-day hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration process.