HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged that the respondent sushi restaurant discriminated against her based on family status and colour when staff told her to order take-out in the future because her children were too loud.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on family status, as she experienced adverse treatment (being told to order take-out) and her family status was a factor.

The claim of discrimination based on colour was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent's owner and staff to complete human rights training.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights applications against the respondent pension plan.

He argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the test for prima facie discrimination and failed to consider key evidence.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rule 26.5 and found that the previous decision correctly applied the law, including the requirement to establish disadvantage, and adequately addressed the central issues.

Finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding to schedule the hearing in May or June 2014, after the original June dates were cancelled due to the respondent's unavailability.

The respondent proposed dates in late July, September, or October.

The Tribunal noted the applicant did not file a formal request to expedite under Rule 21.

Balancing the parties' positions, the Tribunal scheduled the hearing for July 29-31, 2014.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the personal respondent, more detailed witness statements and medical files from the applicant's treating doctors, and the production of financial records.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, noting the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide the requested medical files, witness statements, tax returns, and bank statements, but declined to order the production of cancelled cheques and a mileage log.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, claiming his supervisor targeted him after he disclosed he was gay, and that his subsequent termination was discriminatory.

He also alleged the employer failed to investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the supervisor's treatment of the applicant was unfair and inappropriate, it was not connected to his sexual orientation but rather to his performance and her history of being difficult with new employees.

The termination was found to be based on legitimate performance issues.

The Tribunal also held that an employer's failure to investigate a human rights complaint is not an independent breach of the Code where no underlying discrimination is found to have occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of employment, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to provide written documentation during a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention process.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled to be heard by the Grievance Settlement Board, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists.

When neither party complied, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

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

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to file pre-hearing documents, failed to comply with Tribunal directions, and left the country during the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to explain his non-compliance, filed the request months after the 30-day deadline, and provided no exceptional circumstances outweighing the importance of finality in Tribunal decisions.

The applicants, who both alleged discrimination regarding the accessibility of bus services in Northern Ontario, sought to consolidate their applications.

Ms. Buck also requested to add the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a respondent to her application, as it had already been added to Mr. Bondar's.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add the respondent, finding no prejudice.

The Tribunal also applied the Persaud factors and ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

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

The applicant requested that the application be deferred because she had an outstanding grievance based on the same facts and issues, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of concurrent union grievances.

The applicant subsequently instructed her union to withdraw the grievances in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.

As there was no longer an ongoing concurrent proceeding, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment of a summary hearing because her newborn baby was hospitalized with a serious illness.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, citing negative impacts on her own health.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the hospitalization of the respondent's newborn constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance arising from the same factual circumstances and seeking human rights damages.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding the duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of hearing materials.

Having received no communication or materials from the applicant by the specified deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The respondents requested that the human rights application, which alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, be deferred because the applicant had filed a union grievance dealing with the same issues.

The applicant did not make submissions on the deferral request.

The Tribunal found that the issues and remedies sought in the grievance overlapped with the application, and proceeding could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of sex under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal and termination due to pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondents consented to the deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the ESA claim, noting that the narratives in both claims were almost identical and concurrent proceedings posed a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant, who was in custody, requested that his human rights application be deferred until his release from jail.

The respondent objected, arguing an indefinite deferral would be unfair.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with a merits hearing while the self-represented applicant was in custody would be unfair, as he would have difficulty accessing necessary medical and other documentation.

Balancing the interests, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred for six months or until the applicant's release, whichever occurs first.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and her counsel removed themselves from the record due to lack of communication.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.