HRTO 2015

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after requesting child care accommodation.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance had been filed and deemed settled under the collective agreement when it was not pursued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the grievance was not pursued, no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent must file a formal request if it wishes to add the union as a respondent.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal that post-dated the original filing.

The respondent hotel objected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, finding that the new allegations were distinct from the original ones, would unduly delay the scheduled hearing, and did not involve the individual respondent.

The Tribunal concluded it would not be fair, just, and expeditious to allow the amendment.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

He argued the adjudicator had a conflict of interest because she attended the University of Western Ontario and had previously adjudicated his girlfriend's Social Benefits Tribunal appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict of interest and concluding the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the termination of his employment.

He argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing a union grievance, which was ultimately dismissed at arbitration for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies does not normally constitute a good faith explanation for delay, and the applicant failed to explain a further three-month delay after the arbitration decision.

The application was dismissed as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a part-time cashier, was terminated at the end of her first shift back to work after a two-day absence due to hospitalization for heart tests.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for disrespectful behaviour during a discussion about a broken chair.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and concluded that the respondent perceived the applicant to have a disability that would negatively impact her attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was terminated because of this perceived disability, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, $11,433.50 for lost wages, and the respondent was ordered to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and race.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from December 2012 to February 2013 due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the May 2014 allegation, finding a sufficient nexus between the alleged workplace harassment and the applicant's disability to warrant a full hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that its relationship with its lawyer had ended and it was in the process of retaining new counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the request was made outside the 14-day period and that retaining a new representative who is not available or prepared to proceed is not considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after a summary hearing.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence linking the alleged negative treatment to a protected ground.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not provide any new, determinative evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, as required by Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request was an attempt to reargue the case.

The respondent Kimberly Rose requested a summary hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the issues raised by the parties could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and that summary hearings are intended for applications where allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the human rights application and, alternatively, an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because its newly retained counsel had a pre-existing travel conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding that retaining new counsel who is unavailable on a previously scheduled hearing date does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to be immediately enrolled in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) pending the resolution of his human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship, gender identity, family, and marital status.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the significant onus required for an extraordinary interim remedy that would suspend the operation of the Health Insurance Act prior to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had purchased private insurance and was not disentitled from obtaining health care, meaning the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy.

The applicant, who has a physical disability, was hired by the respondent through a wage-subsidy program to develop a website and social media plan.

After the subsidy period ended, the respondent did not continue the applicant's employment, citing poor work performance on his one written assignment.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided ample time for the applicant to complete the assignment and that the poor quality of the work was unrelated to his disability.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the termination and a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sexual orientation and reprisal, claiming that his private information was posted on a website and that politicians or the government were involved.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding that the applicant failed to link the events to a protected ground or identify how he claimed a right under the Code, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The respondent requested that the human rights Application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior decision by an Employment Standards Officer appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

The Tribunal found that the ESA complaint, which concerned hours of work and related reprisal, made no mention of the human rights allegations of discrimination based on disability, sex, and age.

The Tribunal concluded that the ESA decision did not deal with the substance of the Application and dismissed the respondent's request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services and reprisal by the Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events occurred in Quebec.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction over acts occurring outside Ontario unless they relate to matters within the province.

Finding no sufficient connection to Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal for his membership on a union bargaining committee, but failed to identify any grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss seeking submissions on jurisdiction.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she no longer had a lawyer and was inadequately represented previously.

The respondent objected and requested the Application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to engage in the process.

The Tribunal denied both requests, noting that retaining a new representative or losing counsel at the last minute does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to file pre-hearing materials, including witness lists and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with these obligations despite warnings that the application could be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against numerous respondents alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against several organizational respondents because the allegations did not identify specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents except the Toronto Police Services Board, finding the allegations amounted to general dissatisfaction with services or invasions of privacy outside its jurisdiction.

A summary hearing was ordered for the remaining allegations against the Toronto Police Services Board to address issues of delay and whether there is a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a former student, sought an interim remedy to be readmitted to the respondent university for the Fall 2015 semester, alleging his mental health would deteriorate otherwise.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the extraordinary remedy or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to deliver all arguably relevant documents to the applicant.