HRTO 2015

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, disability, and sexual orientation against her vocational association and its Executive Director, claiming they failed to adequately represent her in dealings with her employer.

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

Finding that a failure to provide adequate representation is not, in and of itself, a breach of the Code, and that the applicant lacked evidence to show the failure was for discriminatory reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the Application.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the hearing venue be moved from Toronto to Ottawa, citing childcare responsibilities and an upcoming childbirth.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the alleged discrimination occurred in Toronto where its witnesses were located.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged discrimination—the refusal of medical services—occurred in Toronto, and the applicant's childcare difficulties were insufficient to justify changing the venue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination on the basis of sex and disability against several insurance and disability management organizations.

The applicant alleged the respondents colluded with her former employer to deny her disability benefits and assist in her termination.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting the respondents' alleged conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent and dismiss parts of the human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the organizational respondent had implicitly assumed liability for her actions.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether the older factual assertions were separate allegations or context for timely allegations.

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

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a proceeding before the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Tribunal subsequently sent two letters requesting a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to either letter.

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

The applicant, a member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after receiving Notices to Appear regarding the potential termination of her membership and occupancy rights, and the subsequent removal of her housing subsidy.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' actions to her disability, nor any evidence to counter the respondents' position that the subsidy was removed for legitimate reasons (failure to provide required income verification).

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding before the College of Teachers.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The respondents advised that the other proceeding had concluded, but the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications arising out of a tenancy with the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference call.

The respondent appeared, but the applicant failed to attend despite being given a half-hour grace period.

As the Notice of Summary Hearing was delivered to the applicant's provided address and there was no apparent reason for the failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned in accordance with its usual practice.

The respondent sought to defer the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment pending the conclusion of a proceeding initiated by the applicant under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim would examine the circumstances surrounding the applicant's termination from employment.

To avoid concurrent proceedings considering the same facts and potentially leading to contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding pursuant to an independent contractor agreement.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the arbitration proceeding had not yet commenced and the applicant lacked the financial resources to pay for it.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application would result in unfairness to the applicant and ordered the respondent to file a fulsome response.

The applicant, a chef, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated from his position at a restaurant.

The applicant had a heart monitor attached to his chest, which the respondents noticed the day before his termination.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, as his disability was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $16,153.85 for lost wages, and $80.78 for out-of-pocket expenses.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant argued that the WSIAT hearing dates were being rescheduled.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIAT proceeding had not concluded and it was not appropriate to reactivate the matter at this time.

The 17-year-old self-represented applicant attended a summary hearing regarding his human rights applications against multiple respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not have a litigation guardian.

Because the issue of whether a minor may proceed without a litigation guardian is complex and the parties had not prepared arguments on it, the Tribunal adjourned the summary hearing until after the applicant's 18th birthday.

The applicant, an Internal Medicine Graduate who was not matched for the respondent's residency program, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

He filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents regarding the citizenship, credentials, and matching statistics of other applicants.

The Tribunal denied the request for information from previous years as irrelevant, and deferred the request for information about other 2014 interviewees until after witness testimony.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of job applications submitted by the applicant in the six months prior to his resignation.

The respondent argued the documents were relevant to its position that the applicant's resignation was unrelated to an alleged poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding they provided an inferential link to support the respondent's line of defence.

The applicant alleged the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to return his motorized wheelchair within 24 hours of completing a driving assessment.

The respondent argued the 24-hour period did not begin until a written report was finalized.

The Tribunal applied principles of contract interpretation and found the settlement did not require a written report.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the settlement by returning the wheelchair five days late and awarded the applicant $500 in damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple letters requesting an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

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

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging age discrimination be deferred pending the resolution of a parallel civil claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that the claims in both proceedings were substantially similar and shared a factual background, creating a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the parties to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

Despite receiving multiple extensions of time, the applicant's representative failed to file the required materials or respond to the Tribunal's final direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned for failure to comply with its directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and ethnic origin by the respondent electricity provider.

The allegations stemmed from a telephone conversation with a paralegal employed by the respondent, who was attempting to collect an outstanding bill for unmetered electricity usage at the applicant's property prior to commencing a civil action.

The Tribunal held that the paralegal's actions were preparatory steps taken with a view to legal proceedings and were intimately connected to a legal proceeding the initiation of which was being seriously considered.

Therefore, the communications were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege, and the application was dismissed.