HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after being evicted from various homeless shelters for using medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the provincial ministries that fund the shelters.

The applicant conceded the application against the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Minister of Community and Social Services, finding that the provision of funding alone was insufficient to establish a link between the Ministry and the alleged discriminatory acts of the shelters.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently entered into proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and ceased carrying on business.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant consented to the removal of one personal respondent.

The Tribunal removed a second personal respondent who had no direct dealings with the applicant and whose alleged conduct did not justify an individual remedy.

However, the Tribunal maintained the applicant's former supervisor as a personal respondent because he was no longer employed by the corporate respondent, meaning the corporate respondent could not enforce any public interest remedies (such as human rights training) ordered against him if the application succeeded.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Both parties failed to comply with their pre-hearing obligations to disclose documents and witness lists.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ordering compliance and warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

When the applicant failed to comply with the direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a condominium resident with a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after the respondents refused to accommodate his request to park his oversized truck in an above-ground spot.

The respondents' underground parking garage could not accommodate the truck's height.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The medical evidence did not establish a disability-related need for the specific vehicle, rendering the applicant's choice a personal preference rather than a requirement triggering the duty to accommodate.

The reprisal allegations were also dismissed as speculative and lacking evidence of retaliatory intent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived all rights to notice or participation, and scheduled a case management teleconference to determine next steps.

Following the closure of a refinery, 18 former employees filed human rights applications alleging that the employer discriminated against them on the basis of age, disability, gender, and family status by failing to rehire them for other positions within the company.

The applicants relied primarily on statistical evidence and a management ranking list.

The Tribunal found that the statistical evidence did not support an inference of discrimination and that the ranking list was based on performance rather than discriminatory factors.

After reviewing the individual circumstances of each applicant, the Tribunal concluded that none had established a prima facie case of discrimination or provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that protected grounds played a role in the hiring decisions.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services and contracts because of a gambling dependency, claiming the respondent securities brokers encouraged him to make trades with money he did not have.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal declined to add several other brokerages as respondents, as no specific acts of discrimination were alleged against them.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's request to anonymize his first name, directing him to follow the proper procedural rules.

Finally, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

In an interim decision prior to a scheduled hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the respondents' witness statements and noted that a witness was being called solely to testify that Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. had no association with the applicant.

As the applicant acknowledged this in her Reply, the Tribunal ordered that Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. be removed as a respondent, the style of cause be amended, and the witness excused from attending, unless a written objection was received by a specified date.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference call.

The respondent attended, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting half an hour, the adjudicator adjourned the hearing.

In accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a 19-year-old, alleged that police officers discriminated against him based on his age when they issued him a trespassing ticket for being in a park after curfew.

He claimed that older individuals in the park were ignored and that a police initiative, Project LEARN, targeted college-aged students.

The Tribunal found that the officers were on routine patrol and issued the ticket because the applicant was in the park after the 10:00 p.m. curfew, not because of his age.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that his age was a factor in his treatment and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement agreement by deducting $46.74 in cheque cancellation and courier fees from her termination pay.

The Tribunal found that the termination pay was not part of the mediated settlement, as the Minutes of Settlement explicitly stated it had been 'already provided'.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal, the respondent requested that several paragraphs of the applicant's amended Application be struck for being vague, untimely, or contrary to a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal reviewed the disputed paragraphs, allowing some to remain, striking others that were overly broad or raised for the first time, and ordering the applicant to provide further particulars (such as dates) for the remaining vague allegations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement during the hearing of a human rights application.

At the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal issued a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The order removed individual respondents, required the respondent to pay the applicant $500, and mandated a statement acknowledging the applicant's concerns at a future Board of Regents meeting.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend the remedies sought in their human rights application.

The respondents subsequently filed a Request to amend their response to address the altered remedies, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of perceived disability, claiming her employer suggested she needed medication and terminated her employment.

The respondent maintained the applicant quit abruptly due to an impending move and denied making any comments about her mental health.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence more credible, concluding the applicant failed to establish that she experienced disadvantage in employment for reasons related to a perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applications or exclude documentary evidence, alleging the applicants failed to produce arguably relevant documents by the December 19, 2013 deadline.

The Tribunal denied the request, explaining that because the hearing dates were rescheduled on consent, the deadline for document exchange under Rule 16.1 automatically shifted to January 21, 2014.

The applicants had attempted to courier their documents on that date.

The Tribunal found no failure by the applicants to meet their obligations and no prejudice to the respondents.