HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour against a taxi company and a personal respondent employed by Canadian National Railway (CN).

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent, finding it lacked jurisdiction because CN is a federally regulated undertaking.

Regarding the organizational respondent, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's underlying allegations had already been investigated and dismissed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in a previous Tribunal application.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code as an abuse of process.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding whether her injury was work-related.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the cause of the applicant's injury had limited relevance to the issues under the Human Rights Code, which requires employers to accommodate disability-related needs regardless of the cause of the disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour against a musician, his band, his legal counsel, and the Assembly of First Nations.

The applicant claimed the respondents employed a double standard by complaining about a football team's logo while using similar terminology themselves.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no service relationship between the applicant and the respondents, and that the complaint was essentially about the expression of an opinion rather than a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of documents, a desk review instead of a hearing, and an adjournment based on medical reasons.

The Tribunal treated the document request as a request for reconsideration of a prior order and granted it in part, ordering the respondent to produce specific emails related to the applicant's surplus status.

The requests for a desk review and an adjournment were denied, the latter due to insufficient medical information.

The applicant was given a deadline to respond to the respondent's request to declare him a vexatious litigant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application and an interim decision that refused his request to expand the scope of the application on the eve of the merits hearing.

The applicant argued the interim decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding amendments to applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision correctly applied established principles to the specific facts of the case and that the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue his position.

The applicant, a university professor, filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers alleging academic mobbing and reprisal.

The respondents and the intervenor university argued the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving all past and future human rights complaints arising from the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found the language of the settlement was clear and unambiguous, precluding the new applications.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The original application was dismissed because the issues had been settled at the Grievance Settlement Board with a release prohibiting further claims.

The applicant argued that a recent breach of the Minutes of Settlement constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a breach of the settlement did not constitute new evidence relevant to the abuse of process finding, and noted that the remedy for any breach lies with the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status, specifically regarding a policy requiring part-time employees to be available for midnight shifts.

The respondent franchisor, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing it only provided operational support to the franchisee and did not control day-to-day operations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the franchisee had attached the franchisor's employment policies to its response, and the franchisor's liability could not be determined without evidence and argument at a hearing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement resolving a prior human rights application.

The respondent circulated a newsletter to residents mentioning the installation of a ramp at the applicant's unit and the resolution of a human rights legal matter.

The Tribunal found that the newsletter breached the confidentiality agreement by linking the litigation to the settlement terms.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the breach.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The original decision found that her complaints involved the Co-op's Board of Directors, which was not a party, and failed to link the property management company's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already decided and failed to demonstrate compelling and extraordinary circumstances.

The respondent police board brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending a judicial review in a separate matter, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate given the imminent hearing date and the fact that the parties were not involved in the judicial review.

The delay issue was deferred to the hearing, as the applicant agreed not to lead evidence on the older incidents.

The request to bifurcate the hearing to separate liability from public interest remedies was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, the City of Toronto, and his union.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer respondents on consent, pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's conduct to a discriminatory ground.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer or stay the human rights application pending the resolution of an application for judicial review in a related case, or alternatively, dismiss the application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had previously filed complaints under the Police Services Act regarding the same underlying incidents of alleged racial profiling.

The Tribunal declined to defer or stay the proceedings, finding that a delay would prejudice the applicant and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Applying its previous decision in Claybourn, the Tribunal also dismissed the request to dismiss under section 45.1, finding that the Police Services Act complaints process did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by police officers during two stops.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had already been dealt with through a Police Services Act (PSA) complaint.

The respondents also requested a deferral pending a judicial review in a similar case.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it would unduly delay the proceedings.

Following its previous decision in Claybourn, the Tribunal also denied the request to dismiss, holding that a PSA complaint process does not preclude a subsequent human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police officers during an incident at his home.

He had previously filed a complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA) which was unsubstantiated.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the PSA complaint appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents also requested a deferral pending a judicial review decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no compelling reason to delay the proceeding.

Following its lead decision in Claybourn, the Tribunal also denied the request to dismiss, concluding that the PSA process did not appropriately deal with the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and other grounds arising from a police traffic stop.

The applicant had previously filed a complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA) which was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The respondent police services and officers brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the PSA process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, they requested the matter be deferred pending a judicial review in a similar case.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no compelling reason to delay the proceedings.

Following its previous decision in Claybourn and the Supreme Court's decision in Penner, the Tribunal also dismissed the request to dismiss under section 45.1, concluding that the PSA complaints process did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add family status as a ground of discrimination and to increase the damages sought by $20,000.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant knew the material facts when filing and that the delay caused prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the unfairness to the applicant of not being able to challenge the actual reasons for his termination outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The corporate respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred because the applicant had filed an objection with the WSIB regarding loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that there was no active WSIB proceeding underway and that the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the harassment and discrimination allegations was broader than the WSIB's.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to join this application with another application against the same respondent, noting that the facts and procedural issues in each case were different.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking the production of the applicant's medical records.

The applicant did not directly respond to the request but filed some medical documents.

The Tribunal found the respondent's request generally reasonable but overly broad, and ordered the applicant to produce medical records from February 2011 to the present, as well as records relating to depression, anxiety, or stress from three years prior to his employment to the present.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability in a school setting, both parties sought interim orders for document production.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant's parents to consent to the use of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) as evidence.

The applicant requested production of complaints against a specific teacher.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's parents to provide written permission for the use of the OSR, finding it arguably relevant to the accommodation provided.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce records of complaints against the teacher, but limited the scope to complaints regarding the treatment of students with disabilities.