HRTO 2014

The respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it breached the Human Rights Code and awarding the applicant lost wages.

The respondent argued the lost wages exceeded the applicant's entitlement under her employment contract and that the Tribunal failed to credit a negative balance in her commission draw account.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the Code prevails over private employment contracts and that there was insufficient evidence to calculate the applicant's lost commission earnings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding a denial of benefits.

The respondent requested deferral of the application because the applicant had an ongoing appeal before the WSIB regarding the same denial of benefits.

The Tribunal found that the factual background and legal issues overlapped significantly with the WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The applicant claimed the grievance had been withdrawn, but the respondent submitted that the union advised the grievance remained active.

The Tribunal found no proper basis to conclude the grievance had been withdrawn and denied the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant relied on all four grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, including new evidence regarding his net worth calculations.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained earlier and would not have changed the outcome.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding lack of notice, conflict with jurisprudence, and public interest.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent police service ignored a reported crime and interfered in his previous human rights applications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant subsequently alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage under Rule 13, finding no facts connecting the respondent's alleged failure to act to the applicant's previous human rights applications, and therefore no jurisdiction over the complaint of general unfairness.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Director of Ontario Works as respondents to her human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that the Ministry of Community and Social Services had previously been named as a respondent but was removed in a 2010 interim decision.

The Tribunal held that attempting to reinstate the Ministry or its officials without having challenged the prior decision via a Request for Reconsideration amounted to an abuse of process.

The request to add the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former criminal defence lawyers, alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

The application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his incarceration, depression, and ignorance of his rights.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of rights does not constitute good faith and that the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to the Code grounds.

The application was dismissed on a preliminary basis.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal issued an interim decision resolving three procedural requests.

Bruce Power L.P. was granted intervenor status on consent to protect the confidentiality of documents.

Requests by both the applicant and a respondent to have certain witnesses testify by teleconference were granted.

The applicant's request to add internet photographs to his document list was also granted, subject to the respondents' right to challenge their admissibility and reliability at the hearing.

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

She sought to add her supervisor as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and the factors from Persaud.

Finding that the allegations of unwanted touching could support a Code violation, that the organizational respondent did not accept liability for this individual, and that there was no prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add the supervisor as a respondent.

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

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

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so.

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

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling by a police officer brought a request for an order to add the Ottawa Police Service, the former Chief of Police, and the former Deputy Chief as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Ottawa Police Service is not a legal entity, the Application contained no allegations against the proposed individual respondents, and their addition was not necessary to implement any potential remedies.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical conditions, but did not provide a doctor's note.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request with conditions, directing the applicant to provide a doctor's note answering specific questions about his medical conditions and ability to participate in a hearing within 21 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Despite the applicant's opposition and complaints about her union's representation and the length of the grievance process, the Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent's law firm.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request because the applicant's submissions were inadvertently sent to the wrong email address by her representative.

Upon reconsidering the merits, the Tribunal affirmed its original finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the law firm.

The Tribunal held that a law firm representing an opposing party is not in a service relationship with the applicant, and therefore its conduct in advising its client does not fall within the scope of services protected by the Human Rights Code.

The application against the law firm was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding the employer's failure to accommodate her return to work following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a union grievance and a WSIB appeal.

The grievance was subsequently resolved.

The respondent requested deferral pending the WSIB appeal, arguing it was necessary to understand the facts.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned initial entitlement and causation, whereas the human rights application concerned discrimination, meaning the subject matters were different.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add a claim for damages for breach of settlement and requested that the hearing be held in her home due to her age and disability.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but objected to the hearing venue.

The applicant subsequently proposed providing her evidence by affidavit and participating by telephone.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application and permitted the applicant to provide evidence by affidavit and participate by teleconference.

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

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to disclose documentation regarding her concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeals to determine if deferral or section 45.1 of the Code applied.

After the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with the directions and warnings, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation in employment.

The corporate respondents failed to file Responses, and a representative claimed the hotel property had been sold and management terminated.

The applicant provided evidence that the corporate respondents remained active and argued their liability did not end with the sale.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that liability for alleged Code breaches is not necessarily extinguished by a subsequent sale, and directed that the Application be served on the organizational respondents at their new addresses.

The respondent requested an order to consolidate two human rights applications filed by the applicant against it.

The first application alleged discrimination based on creed, and the second alleged discrimination based on disability and family status.

The Tribunal applied the factors for consolidation, noting the applications involved the same parties and formed a factual and chronological continuum.

With the applicant's apparent consent, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent, a First Nations organization providing technical and advisory services to member First Nations, requested the application be dismissed on the basis that its operations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the respondent's function and structure in delivering enhanced advisory services to band councils concerning governance issues made it a federal undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.