HRTO 2015

The applicant, a South Asian man, called 911 to complain about dog owners protesting outside his home.

Upon arrival, police officers spoke with the dog owners, who alleged the applicant had threatened them and their dogs.

The applicant admitted to threatening to 'eat' a dog.

The officers arrested and charged the applicant with criminal offences, but did not arrest any dog owners.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the police had credible grounds to arrest the applicant based on the complaints and his own admission, and the applicant failed to prove that his race was a factor in the officers' decision to arrest and charge him.

The applicant requested an order to anonymize her name in the proceedings, citing concerns about the impact on her professional career and a desire for privacy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that these were not exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in transparent human rights processes.

The Tribunal also corrected an error in a previous interim decision regarding the applicant's employment status.

La requérante a demandé de modifier sa requête en matière de droits de la personne pour inclure des allégations selon lesquelles son licenciement était discriminatoire.

Les intimés s'y sont opposés, arguant que la demande était hors délai.

Le Tribunal a accueilli la demande de modification, concluant que puisque la requérante avait soulevé la question de son licenciement dans sa réplique déposée plus d'un an auparavant, les intimés n'étaient pas surpris et ne subiraient aucun préjudice.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in services by the Ottawa Police Service, claiming he was visited by an officer and placed under surveillance following a legal dispute with a former employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding the applicant failed to establish he had asserted his rights under the Human Rights Code and that his link between his former employer and the respondent was pure speculation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because of a workplace injury and a WSIB claim.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap between the proceedings, as the WSIB appeal would likely require determining whether the termination was related to the work injury or the claim for benefits.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in employment requested orders requiring the respondents to produce various documents, including a franchise agreement, video footage, store operating manuals, and workplace safety records.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the franchise agreement with confidential financial and ownership terms redacted.

The remaining requests were denied because the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or did not exist.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all emails from January 2011 to her termination in October 2014.

The respondent opposed the request as overbroad.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overbroad and not sufficiently particularized, as it would encompass many emails irrelevant to the issues of disability, accommodation, and performance.

The applicant was permitted to file a more particularized request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment.

Criminal charges were also laid against the individual respondent arising from the same incidents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the criminal proceedings.

The respondents advised that the individual respondent pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing.

The Tribunal decided not to defer the application, but instead extended the time for the respondents to file their Response until after the scheduled sentencing hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding the termination of his employment.

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

Finding that the factual and legal issues in both proceedings overlapped, particularly with respect to remedy, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a personal respondent, the Dean of the School of Business at the College.

The College and the personal respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the College as a respondent and remove the personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors, finding that the College, as the employer, was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees and was the proper respondent.

The request was granted, the College was added as a respondent, and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant, a young Black man of Haitian ethnicity, alleged he was racially profiled when an Ottawa police officer stopped him for allegedly using a cellphone while driving.

The applicant denied holding his phone and claimed the stop was a pretext based on racial stereotypes.

The Tribunal found that while the officer may have been mistaken about the cellphone, there was insufficient evidence to infer that the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or age were factors in the decision to stop him or in his treatment during the interaction.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for untimeliness and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant and their counsel failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite having notice.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to a 19-month delay in filing.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not applying the Supreme Court's decision in Blencoe and failed to give sufficient weight to his claim of officially induced error based on a government website.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that Blencoe, which addresses administrative delay, was not applicable to the statutory criteria for filing delays under the Code.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to file a response.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not comply with the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination due to delay and only allowed her reprisal allegations to proceed.

The applicant argued that procedural issues, such as delayed disclosure of documents and witness statements, and factual errors in the decision warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any actual prejudice from the delayed disclosure and that the alleged factual errors were not material to the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against her union more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

She explained the delay by stating she had filed grievances through her union which had not progressed.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies before turning to the Tribunal does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on sexual solicitation and advances and sexual orientation.

The primary allegation against the respondent was that it released the applicant's MRI information to members of his community.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the lack of specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found the allegations to be vague and primarily concerning privacy matters, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being apprehended by police and hospitalized involuntarily.

The application was filed almost three years after the incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to lack of information and recent hospitalization.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the applicant did not have a good faith explanation for the delay, as she waited to receive a police report rather than pursuing her rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on a record of offenses.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the facts alleged did not describe discrimination based on a pardoned conviction.

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

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