HRTO 2015

The applicant, Executive Director of the corporate respondent, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

She requested an interim remedy to prevent the Board of Directors from attending the workplace until the application is heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it has never ordered a Board of Directors to be barred from its premises, and expressing concerns about the merits and jurisdiction of the application.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions detailing the alleged Code infringements.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with in the grievance.

The Tribunal found the grievance proceeding had concluded and the request to reactivate was timely.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondent to file its Response, noting that any s. 45.1 dismissal request would require an oral hearing.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following a Divisional Court decision.

The respondent opposed the reactivation on the basis that it had filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the application should remain deferred pending the conclusion of the ongoing appeal proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to limit the respondent's use of her medical chart at the upcoming hearing and require the respondent to particularize the sections to be used.

The respondent filed a Request for Order for an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request as premature, noting that the deadline to file documents to be relied upon had not yet passed.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for an extension of time, finding the short delay caused no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a grievance addressing the same incidents was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it, noting that the grievance arbitration was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights violations.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries.

The applicant failed to comply with the deadline and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, which warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent employer sought to dismiss the employee's human rights application as an abuse of process, arguing the employee had signed a termination agreement accepting a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the termination letter did not explicitly state the employee was releasing his right to pursue claims under the Human Rights Code, nor was this clearly explained to him.

Because the agreement was ambiguous regarding the release of statutory human rights claims, the Tribunal interpreted it against the employer who drafted it.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and the matter was directed to mediation.

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

During the proceedings, the applicant requested accommodation to smoke medical marijuana inside the hearing room.

The Tribunal offered to accommodate the applicant by allowing breaks to smoke outside, but the applicant refused and insisted on smoking indoors, citing federal paramountcy.

After the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal orders requiring him to either accept the offered accommodation or provide medical documentation supporting his need to smoke indoors, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred for medical reasons, and also requested reconsideration of a previous interim decision that denied his request to amend the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application as it was unopposed.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that an interim decision denying an amendment is not a final decision subject to reconsideration, and that the medical evidence provided did not warrant a change in the previous ruling.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex.

The respondent employment agency failed to file a response or participate in the proceedings despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived its right to further participation.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for anonymization, finding that her privacy interests and the risk of prejudice outweighed the open court principle.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after being issued a trespass notice barring him from a courthouse.

The application was filed more than three years after the incident and nearly two years after the applicant withdrew a previous, identical application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as the new information he claimed to have discovered could have been obtained during the original proceedings.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being out of time.

The applicant, a part-time Registered Nurse, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed her shifts were cancelled for discriminatory reasons and that co-workers made derogatory racial and ethnic comments.

The Tribunal found that the shift cancellations were based on valid operational reasons, specifically low patient census and the applicant's low seniority.

Regarding the comments, the Tribunal concluded that even if they were made, they were single, discrete incidents that were not sufficiently egregious or virulent to constitute harassment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a final decision that dismissed his applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged reprisal but failed to connect the respondents' actions to any Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's voluminous submissions did not establish that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure under Rule 26.5(c).

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the result of a proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant provided a copy of a settlement agreement resolving the OLRB matter.

Because the OLRB proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal denied the deferral request and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by striking out several paragraphs.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it would streamline the hearing and reduce the issues without prejudicing the respondents.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that both parties had failed to comply with Rule 16 regarding pre-hearing disclosure of arguably relevant documents, and directed them to immediately file their Statements of Delivery.

The applicant, an attendant employed by the respondent school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after being denied a promotion to Custodian.

He claimed the respondent imposed arbitrary and shifting English language proficiency standards that were not required for the job.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the required Basic Custodian Test due to incomplete and incorrect answers, not solely due to language proficiency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if language requirements were imposed, the applicant provided no evidence linking them to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps regarding a court-ordered stay of proceedings against the respondent.

The applicant failed to respond within the 60-day deadline.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on sex, place of origin, and reprisal brought a Request for Order seeking production of documents relating to former co-workers, the exclusion of a proposed witness for the respondents, and an extension of time.

The Tribunal denied the requests for production, finding the documents were not arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding and ran afoul of the collateral evidence rule.

The Tribunal also refused to exclude the respondents' witness, noting the applicant's concerns went to credibility and weight rather than admissibility.

The request for an extension of time was consequently denied.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement when the respondent's principal sent her a Facebook friend request the day after the settlement was signed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the agreed-upon terms, and the Minutes of Settlement did not contain any provision prohibiting future contact between the parties.