HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (cancer).

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and that he believed it was merely a receipt.

The Tribunal found no duress, noting the applicant had the opportunity to seek legal advice but chose not to, and dismissed the allegations relating to his termination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a subsequent refusal to rehire to proceed, as it was unclear if it fell within the scope of the release.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add three related corporate entities as respondents.

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the applicant alleged discriminatory incidents, including a transfer to another location, that occurred within one year of filing.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent hospital discriminated against her deceased daughter on the basis of disability (intravenous drug use) by providing inadequate medical care.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own suspicions to establish a link between the alleged inadequate care and her daughter's disability.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been dealt with in a grievance arbitration review process.

The applicant argued the review process was procedurally unfair and that the Interim Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no clear departure from established legal rules and concluding that the applicant must accept the consequences of her choice of forum.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and contracts based on disability.

The parties previously settled liability and public interest remedies, leaving only personal remedies to be determined.

At the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal found the parties were not prepared to proceed and converted the hearing to a preliminary hearing.

On consent, the Tribunal issued procedural orders regarding document production, witness statements, and the scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing it was untimely and dealt with in a WSIB proceeding.

During the summary hearing, it became clear that the applicant had an ongoing appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the same facts and issues, specifically whether the respondent offered suitable work and whether the applicant was terminated for reasons related to her injury.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the WSIAT proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment against the respondent, who was in-house counsel for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The respondent had sent a letter asserting that evidence from a College discipline hearing could not be used in the applicant's separate human rights application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the alleged retaliation was not related to the enforcement of human rights, and the relationship between the parties did not fall within a protected social area under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay of proceedings under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal ordered the application against the corporate respondent stayed, directing the applicant to advise if he intends to seek a court order lifting the stay.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide a valid address for the individual respondent, failing which the application against the individual respondent may be deemed abandoned.

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

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to provide new evidence or establish any threshold criteria under Rule 26, and was instead attempting to re-argue her case.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, and requested an interim remedy of immediate reinstatement to her role as Chief Compliance Officer.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting the remedy or that reinstatement would be unavailable at the end of the hearing absent the interim order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a building superintendent and the landlord's son.

This application was identical in substance to a previous application filed by the applicant against the superintendent and the landlord, which had been dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal held that allowing the second application to proceed would be an abuse of process by relitigation, even though the named respondents were different, because the factual and legal issues were the same.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, record of offences, race, and place of origin, culminating in his termination.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to the applicant's termination had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding, which upheld the discharge.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination allegations under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegations against individual respondents, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing requiring the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these requirements by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction providing an extension and warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his mother was seriously ill in the hospital.

The respondent did not oppose the request but asked that any rescheduled dates be convenient for all parties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the illness of a family member who is not a party or witness only warrants an adjournment in extraordinary circumstances where it prevents the party from attending or preparing for the hearing.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient detail to establish such circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and individual respondents.

The applicant's former union, CAW Local 414, filed a Request to Intervene to address any proposed resolution that might impact its bargaining rights.

The respondents did not object, but the applicant objected without providing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the union's Request to Intervene, noting its established practice that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the attendance of the applicant's physician at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant, a doctoral student with post-concussion syndrome, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability during his comprehensive examination.

Mid-way through the hearing, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had provided all accommodations recommended by the applicant's medical professionals.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence linking his requested accommodations—specifically, changing the exam format to eliminate the written component or removing all deadlines—to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success for either the substantive or procedural duty to accommodate claims and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the termination of her employment.

She had previously filed a civil claim for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing her civil claim did not seek damages under s. 46.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication, inconsistent findings of fact, and overlapping remedies for lost wages.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction suggesting the application might be appropriate for deferral due to an ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) appeal involving the same facts and issues.

The respondent supported the deferral, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting that both proceedings addressed whether the applicant was terminated for reasons related to her injury.

The applicant, a former graduate student, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate her disabilities.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the university's internal academic appeal process, which culminated in a decision by the Vice-Provost, had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Provost was not acting pursuant to any statutory authority that conferred concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Code.

As such, the internal appeal was not a proceeding that could bar the application under section 45.1.

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

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance based on the same facts was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.