HRTO 2014

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging infringement of her rights.

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when he failed a driver's examination, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate him.

Respondent Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing Serco Canada Inc. was vicariously liable for the examiner's actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that at this preliminary stage, there was insufficient information about the corporate relationship between the respondents to determine liability, especially given allegations regarding inadequate accommodation policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

In response, the respondent filed a request to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of his WSIB appeal regarding a workplace injury.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues did not overlap.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned the cause of the injury, whereas the human rights application concerned alleged discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no real risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because she might be required to attend a professional conference out of the country.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's need to postpone was speculative and did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against Oncidium Health Group and the union because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by them.

The applicant agreed with the notice, and the application against those respondents was dismissed.

The union subsequently filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted as it was unopposed and raised issues that may affect the union.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent is engaged in international and interprovincial trucking, which is a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant provided no evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal found that the business falls within federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against him with respect to services because of his ethnic origin, specifically by failing to adequately investigate and prosecute three alleged assaults against him.

The Tribunal found that the police did investigate the incidents and exercised appropriate discretion in not laying charges.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers over the applicant's inconsistent testimony and concluded there was no evidence that the officers' decisions were influenced by the applicant's ethnic origin or any other Code ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and age after the respondent university refused to lift a trespass notice originally issued in 2000.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled that allegations regarding events prior to 2010 were untimely and could not form the basis for liability, though evidence of those events could be heard for context.

The Tribunal also established a procedure for the disclosure of documents, allowing the applicant's treating psychiatrist to review certain respondent documents to address health and safety concerns before their release to the applicant.

The corporate respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a civil wrongful dismissal claim filed by the personal respondent against the corporate respondent.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the legal issues in the two proceedings were distinct and there was no significant risk of inconsistent decisions of fact or law.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled merits hearing.

The respondent and its witnesses attended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date and location but chose not to attend.

Noting its duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and the resources expended by the respondent and the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Both the applicant and the respondent sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on his place of origin when it terminated his employment.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence and claim higher damages, while the respondent argued the adjudicator applied the incorrect legal test, breached procedural fairness, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding neither party established the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, following his termination for insubordination related to a return to work plan.

The applicant's union had previously grieved the termination before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB), which dismissed the grievances and upheld the termination.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the GSB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications, both explicitly by finding no failure to accommodate, and implicitly by finding the return to work plan reasonable.

The applications were dismissed.

The respondents requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised essentially the same issues as the application.

In accordance with its normal practice regarding concurrent proceedings under a collective agreement, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision finding it had discriminated against the applicant based on creed.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding prima facie discrimination and adverse inferences, and that the applicant's conduct during the hearing warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent was attempting to reargue factual findings and that the applicant's lawful solicitation of media attention did not constitute intimidation.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Despite receiving notice, the applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnic origin, and colour after his insurer determined he was 100% at fault for an automobile accident under the Fault Determination Rules, despite a police officer stating he did not cause the accident.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the insurer's fault determination to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to dismiss aspects of the applicant's human rights application for delay.

The applicant, a school board employee, alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and reprisals dating back to 2005.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events prior to 2008, including a 2008 supervisory officer selection process, were out of time as they were separated by a gap of more than 12 months from subsequent allegations, breaking any putative series of incidents.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay.

The untimely allegations were dismissed, though some historical evidence may be permitted to provide context for the timely reprisal claims.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing and dismissal for delay.

After the applicant failed to respond to the respondent's requests and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a woman of African descent employed by the City of Toronto, filed a human rights application alleging systemic racial and gender discrimination spanning from 2001 to 2010.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for lack of timeliness and no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents, the last of which occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also held that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a culture of systemic discrimination in the workplace.

The matter was directed to mediation or a full hearing on the merits.