HRTO 2014

The applicant, a male customer service agent, alleged sex discrimination after his employment was terminated following progressive discipline for personal body odour.

He argued that female employees are more sensitive to smells and that enforcing a hygiene standard based on their complaints discriminated against him as a male.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted the applicant admitted to having hygiene issues and failed to provide evidence linking the employer's enforcement of its hygiene policy to his gender.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various materials, including any human rights complaints made by or against the respondents' witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that materials that do not exist cannot be ordered produced, and that unproved allegations involving witnesses are not relevant to their credibility.

The Tribunal also addressed the adequacy of a witness statement provided by a reluctant witness.

The applicant filed 58 applications alleging violations of the Human Rights Code by various respondents.

A summary hearing was scheduled.

The day before the hearing, the applicant filed 35 requests to adjourn the hearing, citing unspecified health issues, a pending privacy complaint, and various procedural objections including allegations of bias.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no merit in the procedural objections and noting the lack of specific information regarding the health issues.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing less than one week in advance because their newly retained counsel was unavailable.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, holding that retaining new counsel who is unavailable on the eve of a hearing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed certain aspects of her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued the adjudicator demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and applied an incorrect legal test.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the original decision correctly applied the 'reasonable prospect of success' standard for summary hearings.

The applicant's request to defer the matter pending judicial review was also denied as premature.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the respondents to file an amended response, and asked that the reconsideration be heard by a different Vice-chair.

The adjudicator declined to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in reconsidering his own decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied because the underlying decision was an interim decision, not a final decision that disposed of any central issues, as required by Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal also admonished the parties regarding their uncivil communications and the improper sharing of without prejudice settlement discussions.

The applicants filed applications under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, which were deferred pending the conclusion of related civil proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the parties to provide an update on the status of the civil proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicants failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applications to be abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre discriminated against him on the basis of race when it declined to represent him at a mediation for a separate employment discrimination case.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Centre's decision not to represent the applicant was based on its assessment of the evidentiary merits of his case, not his race.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed 43 days after the decision, beyond the 30-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's representative had received prompt communication from the Registrar but failed to act timely.

Furthermore, the request did not meet any of the limited substantive grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of documents, including medical records, for all staff of the Wastewater Department and the CAO.

The respondent objected on the basis of relevance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that ordering such broad disclosure without a demonstrated nexus to the issues in dispute would amount to a fishing expedition.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related civil proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide an update on the status of the civil proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of his Outlook email folder and interview evaluations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overly broad and lacking relevance to the issues of family status discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documentation related to his loss of wages claim, including income tax returns.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions on the timeliness of allegations predating the one-year limitation period and to provide an update on a parallel Employment Standards Act complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Canadian Council of Churches, alleging systemic racism by the Presbyterian Church of Canada, a member of the Council.

The application was filed with the assistance of a representative who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant for filing similar applications.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and determined that the application was in substance an attempt to re-litigate the same issues.

The Tribunal refused to grant leave to proceed and further found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the Council had no authority over its member churches and there was no evidence connecting the Council's conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its human rights application for being filed outside the mandatory time limit under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law, was unreasonable, and raised allegations of bias against the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue points already considered and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought to add two individuals as personal respondents to her human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, confirming it would accept liability if discrimination was found and had the ability to pay any compensation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, a corporation is deemed liable for the acts of its employees, and there were no compelling reasons such as allegations of harassment or inability to pay to justify adding the individuals.

The applicant's union, OECTA, requested leave to intervene in the human rights application.

As the request was unopposed, the Tribunal granted intervention status, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member.

The applicant also requested to amend his Application to include broader public interest remedies.

The Tribunal deferred this request to the hearing adjudicator to consider potential adjudicative resource implications and possible bifurcation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, claiming his employment was terminated partly because he had filed a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding concurrent proceedings.

The respondents sought to defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing appeal before the WSIB regarding the same termination and reemployment rights.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were almost identical and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid duplication and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Superior Court of Justice failed to accommodate his hearing impairment during a family court case conference.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the presiding judge had already addressed the issue of the applicant's accommodation during the court proceeding, and that the proper mechanism for review was an appeal to the Divisional Court, not a human rights application.

The Tribunal also noted that the doctrine of judicial immunity protects judicial actors from human rights complaints regarding their adjudicative duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal held a conference call to hear oral submissions.

The applicant argued that the application was not untimely and that the Vice-chair erred in dismissing it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue alleged errors.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

She also filed concurrent grievances through her union.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the Application and the active grievances, the Tribunal deferred the Application.