HRTO 2014

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin in the provision of goods and services.

The applicant claimed he received poor service because he is East European, Russian, and not of noble birth.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding no evidence connecting the respondents' alleged conduct to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant due to his persistent filing of meritless applications and ordered that he must obtain leave before filing any future applications.

The applicants, who were recipients of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

They argued that such funding was available to able-bodied recipients of Ontario Works (OW) benefits but not to them.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were not subjected to discrimination, as OW discretionary benefits for employment-related expenses, including pardons, were available to both OW and ODSP recipients.

Furthermore, the applicants eventually received $500 each in Employment and Training Start Up Benefit (ESUB) under ODSP to assist with the costs of pardons.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicants, two students represented by their parents, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the respondent school principal based on ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had raised sufficient allegations, including that the father was stereotyped as volatile and angry, to warrant a full hearing.

The request to dismiss the applications was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on consolidating the two applications.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because of ongoing adjudication at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant alleged failure to accommodate his disability and discriminatory termination.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB had not dealt with the substance of the application, as it determined the applicant had no ongoing work-related disability and thus did not consider accommodation of any non-work-related disability.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, as there was no active ongoing adjudication at the WSIB.

The respondent's requests were denied.

The applicant alleged he was unjustly removed from the respondent's Executive Committee and claimed discrimination on the ground of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application did not allege any prior claim or enforcement of Code-protected rights, nor any other Code grounds.

Finding no jurisdiction to deal with general allegations of unfairness, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to illness, providing a medical note authorizing her absence from work.

The respondents opposed the request, citing prejudice from ongoing delay and questioning the adequacy of the medical note.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt regarding her current inability to attend, but ordered that any future medical adjournment requests must be supported by a detailed medical note specifically addressing her ability to participate in the hearing.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant's disability was a factor in her termination.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of credibility, was biased, and applied the wrong standard of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that disagreement with factual findings is not a ground for reconsideration and that the Tribunal's active adjudication approach was appropriate and permitted under the Human Rights Code.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Despite multiple written warnings sent by regular mail and email that her application might be deemed abandoned, the applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services because of sex.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant provided evidence that the grievance did not resolve at conciliation and the union decided not to proceed to arbitration.

As the respondents and the affected party did not oppose the request, the Tribunal granted the reactivation and ordered the respondents to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The Tribunal had warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against his employer, a company providing exclusive installation and service work for Rogers Cable Communications Inc. The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's services are an integral part of Rogers' federally-regulated telecommunications undertaking.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application, directing the applicant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The respondent requested that the human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance be dismissed because the complainant had a pending claim before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) raising the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, citing section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, which requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

However, the Tribunal ordered that the complaint be deferred pending the outcome of the SBT proceeding.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the special diet allowance, arguing that the complainant had filed claims before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) raising the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss without a hearing pursuant to section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, but ordered that the complaint be deferred pending the outcome of the SBT proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race and place of origin, claiming that cigarettes he purchased from the respondent's gas station were poisoned.

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

The applicant stated he would rely only on his own testimony about his experiences and had no other evidence to support his allegations.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could successfully prove the cigarettes were poisoned as alleged and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to determine whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the resolution of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant, respondents, and affected party all filed submissions opposing deferral.

The Tribunal agreed with the parties, declined to defer the application, and directed that it be processed in the normal course.

The applicant alleged she was sexually assaulted by a co-worker (the individual respondent) shortly after starting employment.

The individual respondent was criminally convicted.

The applicant alleged the organizational respondent failed to address her concerns prior to the assault, failed to take action after she reported the assault, and informed her she had been replaced when she resigned.

The Tribunal found the employer acted reasonably by agreeing she should call the police, and that the employer did not replace her immediately.

The application against the organizational respondent was dismissed.

The hearing regarding the individual respondent was deferred pending the applicant filing the criminal court's judgment.

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to have its motion to dismiss heard at the outset of the hearing, or alternatively to bifurcate the liability phase, and to strike certain witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the requests for a summary hearing and bifurcation, finding them to be attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to exclude certain witness evidence during the liability phase, as the proposed evidence related to remedial issues such as the impact of the alleged discrimination on the applicant's career and finances.

The applicant's trade union filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status regarding the accommodation of pregnant firefighters.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed late and sought to introduce new allegations.

The Tribunal granted intervenor status, finding the union had a significant interest as the exclusive bargaining agent and that the delay was due to counsel's inadvertence.

However, the Tribunal deferred ruling on whether the union could introduce new factual allegations, directing the union to provide written submissions on the issue.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal.

The respondent Woolford was added to the proceeding but failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and extensions.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, deeming the respondent to have waived his right to notice and participation, and to have accepted all allegations in the application.