HRTO 2014

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal, the applicant sought disclosure of a proposed respondent's cellular phone text messages.

The proposed respondent consented to the disclosure and requested an order directing his cellular service provider to produce the call detail records.

The Tribunal ordered the service provider to produce the records for the specified date, with the proposed respondent to bear the administrative costs.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add four individual respondents, amend the remedial claim, and obtain early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add individual respondents, finding no compelling juridical reason to do so as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to the remedial claim, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The request for early production of documents was denied as premature.

The applicant, who alleges discrimination in services based on a gambling dependency, requested to amend the style of cause to use his middle name instead of his first name.

He sought this change to prevent prospective employers from discovering his involvement in litigation.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it consistent with Rule 1.16(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, who has a mobility disability, alleged discrimination after the respondents refused to allow him to bring his Segway on specialized transit vehicles.

The Tribunal found that while the policy prohibiting Segways was prima facie discriminatory, it was justified under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents met their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, demonstrating that the Segway could not be safely secured during loading or transport due to its lack of brakes and tie-down points, and that accommodating it would cause undue hardship.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, family status, and age, as well as reprisal, following his suspension and the laying of disciplinary charges against him under the Police Services Act.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to evidence connecting the respondents' actions—including the laying of charges, denial of short-term disability benefits, a resolution meeting, and a firearms seizure—to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and discrimination by her employer.

Prior to this, her union had filed a grievance on her behalf raising the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Finding that the grievance was filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and was scheduled for arbitration before an arbitrator with the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

After learning the driver's name through a Tribunal order, the applicant sought to add him as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent and the driver opposed the request, arguing the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and found that the driver's alleged conduct was central to the application and remedies could not be awarded against him unless he was a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the driver as a personal respondent and identified his union as an affected party.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process requested an interim order for the production of historical versions of a declaration form and related council minutes.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the specific allegations in the applicant's pleadings, which focused on the automatic revocation of temporary registration rather than the requirement to disclose physical or mental conditions.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to add 1303939 Ontario Inc. as a respondent.

The existing respondents sought to be removed as parties, identifying 1303939 Ontario Inc. as the proper employer.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the new corporate respondent and ordered all respondents to file their responses within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal, relating to workplace accommodation and the denial of sick leave benefits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

Applying its general approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

He alleged the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information, sent contradictory letters, and pressured him into speaking English during the summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was offered interpretation services but chose to speak English, the letters were administrative and clarified by the Registrar, and the applicant failed to provide evidence linking his complaints to an act of reprisal.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a learning disability after being denied further attempts to pass the respondent's chiropractic examination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, arguing the last incident occurred in October 2008 when the applicant was informed he was ineligible for further attempts.

The Tribunal agreed that the application, filed in September 2013, was outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the applicant's subsequent internal appeals and personal priorities did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the filing of witness lists, statements, and documents.

As the applicant failed to comply or provide an explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent union engaged in a reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code by withdrawing his grievance after he refused to withdraw a separate human rights application against his former employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion between the union and the employer, nor any evidence that the union intended to retaliate against the applicant for pursuing his human rights application.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination because of disability.

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the filing of witness lists, statements, and documents.

Having failed to comply or provide an explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her volunteer work based on disability, age, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a November 2010 ban from the respondent's premises due to delay, finding no good faith reason for the late filing.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a June 2013 ban from a volunteer tent to proceed, as the applicant might establish a link to her disability.

Several individual and organizational respondents were removed from the application due to a lack of supporting facts.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when she was not hired as a probationary firefighter.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the applicant to pass a work-related fitness assessment.

A dispute arose over whether the applicant met the required fitness standards, with the respondent arguing she failed to meet its specific aerobic standard, while the applicant argued she passed the independent assessment as required by the settlement.

Both parties filed applications for contravention of settlement.

The Tribunal interpreted the settlement in favour of the applicant, finding that the agreement required her to pass the independent fitness assessment chosen by the respondent, rather than the specific standards set out in a former By-Law.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as the request merely sought to re-argue issues already decided.

The Tribunal also noted several inaccurate statements made by the applicant regarding the original hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Town of Ajax and subsequently brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add three individuals as personal respondents and to amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the personal respondents, finding no allegations against two of them and noting the Town acknowledged vicarious liability for the third.

The Tribunal allowed the request to amend the application to increase monetary damages but denied the request to add a specific future compliance remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former manager alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the corporate employer, SIR Corp., as a respondent and to remove the individual manager.

The Tribunal added SIR Corp. as a party, noting that the allegations arose out of the applicant's employment and the corporation could be vicariously liable.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the individual manager at this early stage, given her central role in the allegations.

The respondents' Request for Summary Hearing was also denied.