HRTO 2014

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 a Tribunal direction warning that failure to respond might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing counsel's double-booked schedule and the unavailability of key witnesses who were out of the country.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondents failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction, given that they had six months' notice of the hearing dates and provided inadequate explanations for the scheduling conflicts and witness unavailability.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the ground of record of offences.

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 directed deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

In an application alleging discrimination and reprisal, the self-represented applicant requested that the respondent disclose the addresses of several proposed witnesses.

The respondent refused to disclose the addresses without more detailed witness statements.

Following a teleconference, the applicant provided sufficient particulars for four witnesses but failed to do so for four others.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the addresses for the four witnesses with sufficient particulars, noting that relevance could be challenged at the hearing, but denied the request for the remaining witnesses.

The applicant, a former Financial Analyst, alleged that his employment was terminated and he was subjected to differential treatment because of his race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent maintained that the termination was without cause and related to performance issues and a clash in management styles.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's race, colour, or ethnic origin were factors in the termination or any other employment decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board after it denied his claim for compensation for alleged abuse when his mother used drugs during her pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of timeliness and judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the Board is a quasi-judicial decision-maker protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former spouse, alleging discrimination with respect to contract based on family and marital status during subsequent legal proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Code does not govern private relationships between parties, including marriage, and the applicant failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant, a customer at the respondent's convenience store, alleged that the store's co-owner uttered a racial slur against her during a dispute over American currency.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner called the applicant a 'Fucken Chinese' as she was leaving the store, which constituted discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $600 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the transitory nature of the encounter and the lack of an ongoing relationship.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the remedies sought in his human rights application to include punitive compensation, dismissal of the respondent's office team, and a letter of apology.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing and any potential prejudice could be addressed by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and add her former employer as a respondent.

The request was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the amendments were sought expeditiously prior to mediation and that the proposed respondent could be subject to Tribunal orders as the former employer.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, providing a doctor's note indicating an inability to participate.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, citing a history of last-minute requests and prejudice, and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal cancelled the first hearing date but ordered the second date to proceed to hear evidence and argument specifically on the adjournment request and whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant, a male university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and race after he refused to attend a Women & Gender Studies course because he was the only male student.

He claimed the professor's refusal to adjust the marking scheme to excuse him from class participation, her assignment of low marks, and her failure to post marks electronically constituted discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant's discomfort was a personal preference, not a need arising from his gender, and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB decision regarding the applicant's workplace injury had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were ongoing and under appeal.

However, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the outcome of the WSIB appeal to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact regarding the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

The applicant, a supply teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and ethnic origin after the respondent Catholic school board refused to place him on its supply teacher list because he is not Catholic.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought the production of lists of supply teachers and their religious affiliations for several school years.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce specific lists of non-Catholic teachers and new hires from 2010-2011, subject to confidentiality restrictions, but declined to order the creation of new documents or a burdensome review of all personnel files.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, and the franchisor-like entity (Best Western International Inc.) as a corporate respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent due to questions about the corporate respondent's continued existence and ability to pay compensation.

The Tribunal denied the request to add Best Western International Inc., finding no basis for direct or vicarious liability given the independent contractor relationship and lack of control over employment matters.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She argued that the Tribunal should disregard the evidence of the respondent's witnesses due to alleged falsification and conflicting testimony.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and had not met any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as presenting new determinative evidence or showing a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, citing a medical emergency.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to attend.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an Early Childhood Assistant, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability after her hours were reduced and her employment was ultimately terminated.

She also alleged that the personal respondent made discriminatory age-related comments, creating a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that the reduction in hours and termination were legitimately based on operational changes due to the implementation of full-day kindergarten and the applicant's failure to register as an Early Childhood Educator.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comments, finding her testimony lacked credibility and reliability, and preferred the evidence of the personal respondent.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the removal of all personal respondents from the application and closing the file.

The respondent Humber College filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove several individual respondents, require the applicant to provide further particulars, and extend the time to file its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, noting that Humber accepted responsibility for their actions in the course of employment.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, and granted Humber a 30-day extension to file its Response after the particulars are provided.