HRTO 2014

The applicant, a female sales executive, was excluded from a company-sponsored customer appreciation event ("Men's Day") because of her sex.

After she complained to management about the exclusionary nature of the event, her supervisor ceased one-on-one meetings with her, excluded her from other meetings, and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal found that the exclusion from the event constituted discrimination on the basis of sex under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, as it adversely impacted her ability to build client relationships compared to her male peers.

The Tribunal also found that the termination and other exclusionary actions constituted a reprisal under s. 8 of the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages and $150 for the value of the event.

The applicant, an employee of the LCBO, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, and reprisal, primarily concerning his need for accommodation to care for his elderly parents.

He sought an interim remedy to be returned to a specific store location pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or urgency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of multiple ongoing grievance arbitrations that raised similar and overlapping issues regarding the applicant's family status accommodation needs.

The applicant, a former PhD student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after his PhD program was terminated and he was accused of plagiarism.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not establish any connection to a protected Code ground.

The applicants filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondents breached a prior settlement agreement when a security guard temporarily prohibited children from using a condominium billiard room.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the security guard's actions were based on a temporary mistaken belief that was quickly corrected when the applicants provided proof of the rule change.

The Tribunal concluded that the alleged breach was de minimis and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the notice by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a human rights hearing scheduled for March 17-19, 2014, citing late receipt of the applicant's documents, their own failure to comply with pre-hearing obligations, and the unavailability of a witness and one of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had ample notice of the hearing since July 2013 and failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging sex discrimination.

He had been terminated due to complaints about his body odour, which he argued were based on subjective female standards that he, as a male, should not have to meet.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not provided new determinative evidence or established any other grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which dismissed an application brought by an estate.

The original decision found that an estate is not a person capable of experiencing discrimination and therefore lacked standing to file an application regarding acts that occurred after the deceased's death.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision was not in conflict with established jurisprudence and did not import a new threshold requirement for accessing the human rights system.

The applicant failed to file any documents or witness statements for the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to participate by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.

The applicant and respondent participated in a mediation and reached a settlement agreement regarding computer access for psychiatric patients at the respondent hospital.

The parties filed a joint request for a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a final decision incorporating the terms of the settlement, which included providing additional computers, establishing supervised access periods, and allowing patients to use their own laptops under specific conditions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant warning that failure to respond within ten days might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age against the WSIB and Hotel Dieu Hospital after his claim for WSIB benefits was denied.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the hospital as it lacked jurisdiction, given no specific acts of discrimination were alleged.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the WSIB should be dismissed based on adjudicative immunity, lack of jurisdiction to review benefit decisions, or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with the authority to resolve them.

The applicant requested an expedited hearing date due to a family emergency requiring her to travel overseas to care for her seriously ill father.

The respondent requested a delay until September due to the unavailability of its representative and seasonal business requirements.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, finding that her need for Code-related accommodation took precedence over the respondent's business preferences, and directed the parties to schedule the hearing in May or June.

In a human rights application, the respondent requested production of various documents from the applicant and indicated it might seek an adjournment of the upcoming three-day hearing due to outstanding production issues.

The applicant and co-respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, emphasizing its institutional interest in managing resources and avoiding the loss of scheduled hearing days.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to make their required pre-hearing disclosure and provided directions for resolving the outstanding production issues on the first day of the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the owners of the corporate respondent as personal respondents, alleging the corporate respondent or its assets had been sold.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding personal respondents and granted the request, finding that the applicant made specific allegations against one of the individuals that could constitute a Code violation, and that adding them at an early stage would not prejudice the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual assault and harassment by the owner of the respondent dental practice.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of related criminal charges against the owner.

The Tribunal found that the criminal proceedings pre-dated the application and stemmed from the same facts, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination.

After multiple hearing dates and adjournments, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled continuation date, instead sending an email requesting the adjudicator be replaced due to alleged bias and stating the hearing was a waste of time.

The Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to confirm its intentions regarding the application.

After the estate failed to respond by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.