HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the CHRC proceeding.

As the applicant did not oppose deferral and the respondent supported it, the Tribunal deferred the Application due to overlapping factual and legal issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the CHRC proceeding.

As neither party opposed the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application due to overlapping factual and legal issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

Due to the overlapping factual and legal issues and the absence of any opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the CHRC complaint.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding his entitlement to early retirement benefits under an Interest Arbitration Board decision.

The Toronto Professional Firefighters' Association requested to intervene, which was granted as unopposed.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, lack of jurisdiction, or because the substance was appropriately dealt with by the Interest Arbitration Board.

The applicant, a temporary bus operator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age after her employment was terminated and she was not hired for a full-time position.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's short-term illnesses (flu, minor car accident, eye infection) did not constitute a disability under the Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's termination was based on documented performance issues, not her age, and that isolated comments referring to her as 'kido' or 'young' did not amount to harassment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide documents, a witness list, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

After being warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant still did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the applicant's age discrimination application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged she was overworked, unfairly disciplined, and transferred with reduced hours due to her age, pointing to similar treatment of other older employees by a new assistant manager.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's case relied on potentially difficult similar fact evidence, it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was allowed to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent rescinded an offer to rehire him.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the limitation period expired on a Saturday, extending the deadline to the next business day.

The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability, and declined to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, though it warned the applicant about using inappropriate language.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for delay, arguing the applicant's employment was terminated in 2011 or early 2012, more than a year before the December 2013 application.

The applicant maintained she was never terminated and submitted a 2013 T4 statement as proof of ongoing employment.

The Tribunal found that the T4 suggested the applicant was still an employee in 2013, making the application timely.

Alternatively, the Tribunal held that any delay was incurred in good faith due to the T4 issuance, and allowed the application to proceed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's objection to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant alleged failure to accommodate a repetitive strain injury and discrimination based on family status.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the WSIB's determination of whether the injury was work-related would not dispose of the question of whether the applicant has a disability under the Code, nor would it address the family status allegations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include allegations of reprisal, specifically a reassignment decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the vague allegations lacked particulars and the specific reassignment allegation was brought less than a month before the scheduled hearing, which would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and gender expression after the respondent law firm declined to act for her in a sexual assault claim against a third party.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the communications from the firm merely provided a risk assessment and there was no evidence of differential treatment or disadvantage linked to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination by a police officer who allegedly used offensive language and acted aggressively during a dispute over a towed vehicle.

The respondents requested a deferral pending a judicial review in an unrelated case, which the Tribunal denied.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or disability.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with through an internal harassment and discrimination complaint process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's union intervenor status, as is standard practice when an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal against his employer, a co-worker/union steward, and his union.

Following a case management call to address preliminary issues, the Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the grounds of race and vocational association.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent and set deadlines for the union to file a response and for the parties to exchange documents prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, a Registered Practical Nurse, alleged her employment was terminated because of her colour.

The respondent employer maintained she was terminated for breach of trust after an investigation revealed a complaint email was sent from her daughter's work computer.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no evidence linking her termination to her colour, relying only on her own belief and speculation.

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

The applicant requested that her human rights application be consolidated with two other applications filed by former employees against the same respondents.

The applicant argued that all three applications involved allegations of a poisoned work environment and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and denied the request, finding that the applications raised distinct factual and legal issues, including different grounds of discrimination and separate factual matrices, which outweighed the inconvenience of separate hearings.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in the provision of medical services after the respondent's receptionist's boyfriend uttered racial slurs at him, and the respondent subsequently discontinued the doctor-patient relationship.

The Tribunal found that the respondent could not be held vicariously liable under s. 46.3 of the Human Rights Code for the boyfriend's actions, as the boyfriend was not an agent acting in the course of employment.

The Tribunal also found that the discontinuation of the doctor-patient relationship was not tainted by racial discrimination, but was a response to the applicant's unreasonable and inappropriate behaviour towards the receptionist.

The application was dismissed.

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

A hearing was scheduled for May 2, 2014.

The applicant's counsel attended, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting until 10:00 a.m. without any communication or explanation from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.