HRTO 2014

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

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

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

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

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of a criminal proceeding involving overlapping facts.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that because the criminal charges stemmed from the same facts as the application, there was a significant potential for factual overlap and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.

The applicant, who is incarcerated, requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing and an extension of time to file particulars, citing difficulties accessing documents held by his former counsel and on a memory stick.

The Tribunal granted a six-month extension to allow the applicant to secure the necessary documentation or otherwise comply with the direction to provide particulars.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel anticipated a scheduling conflict with a Superior Court trial.

The request was made more than 14 days after the notice of hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a potential scheduling conflict does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling policies.

The applicant, a 75-year-old former school bus driver, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age when it did not hire him for a route.

The respondent had recently acquired another transportation company and was contractually obligated to assign its existing drivers to the available routes.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, credible, and non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision based on contractual obligations and cost-containment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, specifically that she was terminated due to pregnancy.

She subsequently brought a request to amend her application to change the ground of discrimination from family status to sex, and to increase the monetary damages sought.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the amendments were minor or related solely to relief, and would not prejudice the respondent or negatively impact the hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the calculation of his Long Term Disability benefits.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an interim remedy of compensation for constructive dismissal, noting the Tribunal does not award such compensation and it would be inappropriate to grant a final remedy on an interim basis.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend his Application to include a 56-page mediation brief containing unrelated allegations, but allowed him to amend the remedy sought.

Finally, the Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the Application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, directing the applicant to file his Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days to demonstrate he had removed his request for a human rights remedy from his concurrent civil action.

The applicant filed multiple applications alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file witness statements, documents, and written submissions.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and was warned that the applications could be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the applications and dismissed them.

Following a finding that the applicant's shoulder injury was a factor in her termination, the Tribunal requested written submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to award monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, as the applicant had not requested it in her application.

The Tribunal held that under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code, it has broad remedial discretion to award unrequested monetary compensation to fulfill the Code's remedial purposes.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant lost wages and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after receiving a parking ticket near their mosque during Friday prayers.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) filed a Request to Intervene, seeking to make submissions and cross-examine witnesses.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it would unnecessarily prolong the hearing.

The Tribunal granted NCCM intervenor status but limited its participation to written and oral submissions, finding that allowing cross-examination would be potentially repetitive and lengthen the hearing given that the applicants were already represented by counsel.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an interim order for the production of attendance, performance, and payroll records of two other employees, as well as contact information for a potential witness.

The Tribunal granted the request for the employment records, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of differential treatment regarding attendance management.

The request for witness contact information was denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her former employers and a new service provider following her return to work from hip replacement surgery.

The union had previously filed a grievance alleging failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal declined to defer, finding that the application raised broader issues, including the new service provider's refusal to hire the applicant, which could not be addressed in the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement by failing to make the final two installment payments in a timely manner.

The respondents conceded the breach, citing financial hardship, but provided no evidence to support this claim.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement and ordered them to pay $1,000 in damages, inclusive of interest, to compensate the applicant for the delay and associated anxiety.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal and disability, claiming excessive monitoring by the personal respondent related to his sick leave.

The Tribunal found that it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the respondents' request.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application.

He alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because he had filed a complaint against the adjudicator prior to the decision, and claimed the adjudicator hung up on him during a teleconference.

The Tribunal found no objective basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that the mere filing of a complaint does not create one.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to provide new determinative evidence or identify any conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against his former employer, a corporate respondent.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the business as an individual respondent, arguing that the owner was personally involved in the alleged discriminatory conduct and was attempting to sell the business.

The corporate respondent opposed the request.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found compelling reasons to add the owner as a respondent, noting his direct involvement in the allegations and concerns about the collectability of potential financial remedies if the business were sold.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

The respondent requested the removal of two personal respondents and a summary hearing to strike allegations of reprisal and discrimination by association.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that the disputed facts regarding discrimination by association required a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal, in relation to her employment and its termination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding incidents prior to the termination of employment were untimely, as the applicant failed to provide specific dates and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Regarding the termination itself, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any material evidence linking the termination to a protected ground or establishing the elements of reprisal.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add the President of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent and to change the monetary remedy sought.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors, finding that the proposed personal respondent's conduct was central to the allegations of age discrimination and that the corporate respondent's insolvency raised concerns about its ability to remedy any Code infringement.

The Tribunal granted both requests to amend the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after losing his teaching position.

He claimed he was threatened by the President of the respondent's Education Department after asking a question about another employee's role.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's actions were linked to claiming or enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.