HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant filed a revised application alleging she was terminated in reprisal for complaining about gender-based harassment by the General Manager.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction and ordered the application to be served on the respondent.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1287 filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Union sought to intervene as an interested party to address issues of remedy and matters impacting the collective agreement.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response opposing the request, and the Union demonstrated an interest in the outcome, the Tribunal granted the request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated in 2009 after he experienced sudden deafness and tinnitus.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, arguing only that he was waiting for the completion of a Veterans Affairs Canada process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plainly out of time.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend her human rights application to include a request for reinstatement.

The applicant, now represented by counsel, had originally drafted the application herself and omitted the claim.

The respondent did not object to the request.

Applying the factors from Aubin, the Tribunal found no prejudice to the respondent given the hearing was months away, and granted the amendment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's ongoing Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim for a leave of absence and public holiday pay.

The respondent objected to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the human rights application (termination) did not overlap sufficiently with the ESA claim (leave of absence and holiday pay) to warrant deferral.

The Tribunal ordered that the application proceed and directed the respondent to file a full response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and disability regarding the respondent's decisions on his labour market re-entry plan and denial of ergonomic equipment.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding the retraining plan and ergonomic equipment were filed more than one year after the incidents and did not constitute a series of incidents.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The timely allegation regarding the calculation of benefits was dismissed as the applicant showed no link to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former landlord and the City of Ottawa, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the landlord failed to properly install a walkway and subsequently filed eviction notices in reprisal for the applicant asserting his human rights.

He also claimed the City failed to enforce property standards regarding the walkway.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the landlord's or the City's actions to his disability, nor any evidence that the landlord's Landlord and Tenant Board applications were intended as a reprisal.

The applicant, a seasonal employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and reprisal by her employer and union regarding her work assignments, alleged workplace harassment, and union representation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because she could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to her sexual orientation or establishing an intention to retaliate for a previous human rights application.

Furthermore, allegations regarding a 2012 work assignment were dismissed for delay as they fell outside the one-year time limit and did not form part of a series of incidents with any timely, viable allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent employer's failure to permit her to return to modified work.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking access to the applicant's personal health information contained in its internal Occupational Health and Claims Management file, arguing it could not file a complete Response without reviewing these documents.

The Tribunal found that exceptional circumstances justified the early production of these arguably relevant documents, as privacy legislation otherwise prevented the respondent from accessing them.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the relevant portions of the file and extended the time to file its Response by 35 days.

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

The Tribunal addressed three preliminary requests.

First, the applicant's initial request to defer the application pending a grievance process was denied because the grievance process had concluded.

Second, the Union's request to intervene was denied because it was already named as a respondent and thus had full party standing.

Third, the City's request for further particulars was resolved as the applicant provided sufficient information, and the City was directed to file its Response.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming she was denied training and startup funding under the ODSP program.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because an appeal dealing with the substance of the allegations was scheduled before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and require the parties to address substantially the same issues in two forums.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the Social Benefits Tribunal appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Federal Express Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated business.

As the respondent operates interprovincially, it falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of a related union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The intervenor requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates in the event that the Application is not resolved through mediation-adjudication on the first day of the hearing.

The stated reason was to avoid unnecessary costs and provide the best opportunity to settle.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, requests made outside the ordinary time limit require extraordinary circumstances.

The desire to engage in settlement discussions is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend her human rights application by adding the union president as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling juridical reason to name him personally, as there were no particularized allegations against him and his individual conduct was not a central issue.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the applicant's long-term disability insurer and the WSIB.

The Tribunal held that an insurance provider's internal process is not a 'proceeding' under the Code and denied the request to dismiss on that basis.

The Tribunal deferred the WSIB overlap issue to the hearing on the merits and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing, finding factual disputes required evidence.

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

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to defer the application because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on gender expression after being required to remove her brassiere while in police custody.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings, as the respondent suggested the applicant might bring a Charter challenge on the same facts.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that it was uncertain whether a Charter application would actually be brought, and deferral on a speculative basis was not appropriate.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of two related union grievance proceedings.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance processes.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and lacked facts showing good faith.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.