HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming the respondent police service treated her as if she had a mental illness during interactions since 2006.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success or should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and required evidence to resolve.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response to the most recent alleged incident.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

In the absence of the applicant and any explanation for the failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $1,000 in damages for breach of a settlement.

The respondents argued the damage award was inconsistent with Tribunal case law and improperly accounted for legal expenses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the respondents failed to point to any conflicting jurisprudence or demonstrate a clear and surprising departure from established legal rules regarding damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, which culminated in his resignation.

On the first day of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to retain legal counsel, which the Tribunal denied as the applicant had over six months' notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal then addressed the preliminary issue of timeliness.

Finding that the application was filed at least five days after the one-year limitation period expired, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting no medical evidence linked his mental health issues to the late filing.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(a), (b), and (c) and submitted several documents dating back to 2009.

The Tribunal found that the documents were not new, could not be determinative of the delay issue, and the applicant failed to explain why they were not submitted earlier.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The individual respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed from the human rights application and to have the school board substituted as the respondent.

The applicant consented to the substitution.

Applying the Tribunal's established factors for removing personal respondents, the adjudicator granted the request, removed the individuals, and substituted the school board as the sole respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB discriminated against him based on disability when it denied him Loss of Earnings benefits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of adjudicative immunity and whether WSIB decisions constitute 'services' under the Code.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the WSIB is immune or that its decisions are not services.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application identifies specific acts of discrimination rather than merely alleging the WSIB's decision was incorrect.

The applicant, who was self-represented, renewed her request to adjourn a summary hearing, citing hospitalization for a serious psychiatric illness.

She undertook to provide a letter from her psychiatrist.

The adjudicator found that these constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The request was granted on the condition that the applicant provide the promised medical letter by a specified date, and the summary hearing was ordered to be rescheduled.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by withdrawing his acceptance into a welding program because he was 63 years old, wore bifocals, and took Percocet.

The respondents claimed the acceptance was withdrawn due to the applicant's aggressive and bullying behaviour when he confronted them about his admission.

The Tribunal found that while the respondents had concerns about the applicant's age and medication, they had not withdrawn his acceptance prior to his attendance at the institute.

The Tribunal concluded that the acceptance was ultimately withdrawn because of the applicant's confrontational demeanour, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding regarding his termination and severance pay.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct disentitling him to severance, and did not address or make findings inconsistent with the human rights allegations.

The applicant, a tenant with environmental sensitivities, alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disability.

The applicant provided medical notes indicating that fumes from paint and varnish used in nearby apartments caused her to become ill.

The respondent argued the medical evidence was insufficient and took no steps to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a disability and a need for accommodation, and that the respondent failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship, thereby breaching her rights under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination based on disability brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application.

She sought to include a new allegation regarding a Last Chance Agreement and evidence of recent events.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that allowing amendments after the hearing had already commenced and the applicant had completed her evidence would be prejudicial to the respondents.

The Tribunal also noted it had previously ruled the recent events were outside the relevant time period.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing application filed by the applicant at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings, including allegations of ignored harassment complaints and broken locks.

Applying the factors for deferral, the Tribunal concluded it was appropriate to defer the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the LTB matter.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant did not respond.

The respondents subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction to provide submissions, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination two weeks after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant demonstrated that she had provided timely instructions to her counsel, but the delay was caused by her counsel's trial schedule and subsequent vacation.

The Tribunal found that the delay was incurred in good faith and allowed the application to proceed.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by not offering him a transit operator position because he is a white male, while preferentially hiring Sikh candidates.

Following a summary hearing directed by the Tribunal, the adjudicator found that the application could not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The application will continue to be processed and proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and age against Air Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that Air Canada is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking or business subject to federal regulation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which was denied.

The respondents also requested the removal of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents and capable of satisfying any remedial order.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against her on various Code grounds by failing to properly investigate her complaints of being followed and telepathically harassed.

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

The applicant was unable to point to any evidence, other than her own belief, linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

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