HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents blocked his access to the university's Wi-Fi network.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to join the teleconference despite having access to a phone and contacting tribunal staff.

The respondents' counsel attended and requested dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application orally, finding the applicant failed to provide contact information as required and was capable of joining the call.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, marital status, and reprisal.

She claimed her employer failed to accommodate her broken ankle by pressuring her to drive, and that the owner persistently harassed her regarding her sponsorship of her Jamaican husband.

The Tribunal found that the employer breached its duty to accommodate the applicant's temporary disability and engaged in workplace harassment based on marital status.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims that her subsequent termination and the issuance of an inaccurate Record of Employment were discriminatory or constituted a reprisal.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer.

The union intervened, and the applicant requested that the union be removed as an intervenor and added as a respondent.

The applicant also requested consolidation with another application, while the respondent requested deferral pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual foundation for a discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also denied consolidation due to different facts and stages of proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration, which involved the same facts and issues.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he had subjected the applicants to discrimination.

The respondent argued that his initial responses to the claims were not considered and asked that the cases be dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to present new determinative evidence or meet any other threshold criteria under Rule 26.5, noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

The applicant, an Early Childhood Educator, alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondent inequitably distributed wage subsidies, excluded her from training, and unfairly reduced her hours.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure of various documents related to training, subsidies, staffing, and parent notices.

The Tribunal found the requested documents to be arguably relevant to the issues in dispute and ordered the respondent to produce them, noting that confidentiality concerns do not preclude disclosure under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of a civil action, which was subsequently discontinued when the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found no violation of its rules regarding the deferral process and noted that the civil proceedings had concluded.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as it merely sought to re-argue issues already determined.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance process.

The applicant's union advised that the grievances had been withdrawn, settled, or were not being pursued.

Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to defer the application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application, noting that the respondents had not yet filed a response.

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

The respondent failed to file a response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to reimburse him for expenses related to psychiatric treatments as agreed in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent argued the increased frequency of visits demonstrated bad faith and that the treatments were not necessary for the compensable injury.

Finding ambiguity in the Minutes and noting the bad faith allegations, the Tribunal ordered an in-person hearing to hear extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment in her employment, which culminated in her termination.

Following the filing of the application, the parties engaged in a mediated settlement process during a labour arbitration regarding her termination grievance.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement that explicitly resolved all claims the applicant had or could have under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not under duress when signing the settlement and that permitting the application to continue would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed two grievances relating to the same issue of workplace accommodation.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it.

The Tribunal found that it would not be constructive to have two proceedings concurrently consider the same facts and potential remedies.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised could only be resolved after hearing the respondent's evidence, and ordered the hearing to continue.

The applicant filed an application against the Ministry of Transportation alleging discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code, based on the Ministry's failure to respond to his complaints about a municipality's lack of road maintenance.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the Ministry's failure to respond did not constitute discrimination, and there was no evidence of reprisal for claiming or enforcing Code rights.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer a human rights application alleging discrimination in services, as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had stayed the application pending the final disposition of a related court matter.

Both parties agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the anonymization of the applicant's name to protect the identity of her minor child.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the employer accommodated individuals with WSIB claims ahead of those with non-work-related disabilities.

The union respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related policy grievance that was being advanced to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the policy grievance covered the same facts and human rights issues and its outcome could be determinative of the applicant's individual grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the policy grievance process.

The applicant requested an interim order to amend his human rights application to include new allegations regarding the respondent school board's failure to accommodate his disability-related needs, including the denial of a service dog and failure to implement his Individual Education Plan.

The respondent objected to the new allegations, arguing they lacked particulars and expanded the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegations were closely related to the original ones, no hearing date had been set, and there was no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to file a Reply out of time.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a default decision finding them liable for discrimination, arguing they did not receive adequate notice of the proceeding or the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent had received multiple notices but chose to ignore them, failing to exercise minimal due diligence.

The applicant's request to add the new amalgamated corporate entity as a respondent was granted, as the misnomer was technical and the new corporation had effective notice through its principal.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he was induced to sign it by the respondent's fraudulent misrepresentation that his termination was due to restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the test for fraudulent misrepresentation, specifically the requirement to repudiate the agreement and return the settlement funds within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and related accommodation requests.

The respondent employer maintained that she was terminated for cause after an internal investigation concluded she had improperly obtained an employee discount for her husband's meal, which the employer viewed as theft.

The Tribunal found that while the employer's discount policy may have been unclear and inconsistently applied, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant's pregnancy or accommodation requests played any role in the decision to terminate her employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

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

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.