HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour against the respondent school board, a school principal, and a teacher.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, which the Tribunal granted, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as the school board assumed liability for their actions.

The Tribunal also granted the teachers' union leave to intervene, as the remedies sought could affect its members.

The applicant's request for document production was deferred as premature.

The Tribunal set out issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant sought production of documents and the names of the members of the Admissions Committee that denied his application for admission to an academic program.

The respondent objected, citing FIPPA and privilege, and requested an undertaking that the applicant not contact the committee members.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the names and the documents, finding them arguably relevant, and held that FIPPA does not limit the Tribunal's power to order disclosure.

The Tribunal also set out a process for the respondent to assert privilege over specific documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation because of receipt of public assistance.

She sought an interim remedy to allow her to continue residing with her parents in the respondent co-op, contrary to its by-laws, and to prevent the respondent from penalizing her parents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's parents were not parties to the application, the reason for the request was unconnected to any Code ground, and there was no indication that the Tribunal would be unable to remedy any alleged breach if the applicant vacated the apartment.

The applicant, a software developer with a physical disability, alleged that the respondent terminated his employment after one month because of his disability.

The respondent argued that the termination was due to performance issues and the cancellation of the project by its funder.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's theory of discrimination was largely speculative and that there was no reasonable prospect he could prove a link between his termination and his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his housing provider, primarily regarding a refusal to provide a larger apartment to accommodate his exercise equipment.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident occurred in 2009, five years before the application was filed.

The applicant's explanations for the delay, including conducting legal research, waiting for a Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding to conclude, and medical issues, did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on ethnic origin and disability, as well as reprisal.

The last alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

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

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

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

The applicant, alleging age and sex discrimination in a hiring process for underground miners, brought a Request for Orders During Proceedings seeking production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information regarding the familial relationships of the successful candidates and all hiring information, including government modules, resumes, and interview summaries.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of the names of female underground production miners, finding the information had little relevance.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged she was terminated because of her sexual orientation after her manager allegedly stole her cell phone, read her text messages, and discovered she was a lesbian.

The respondents maintained she was terminated for poor performance, including leaving work early and failing to follow instructions.

The Tribunal found the applicant's theory highly improbable, accepted the manager's evidence that she did not steal or search the phone, and concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on multiple grounds, including race, disability, and age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegation regarding a 2009 layoff was out of time and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between the respondent's alleged conduct and any of the grounds cited in the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a Request for Order seeking leave to amend his Application to add further allegations of reprisal and increase his claim for compensation, an extension of time to file documents, an order compelling the respondents to call a specific witness, and further documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Application and the claim for compensation, noting the amendments were raised expeditiously and caused no specific prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to compel the witness, finding the evidence was not necessary at this stage.

The Tribunal granted in part the requests for further disclosure, ordering the respondents to provide particulars regarding their response to the applicant's discrimination complaint, information on cultural sensitivity training, and clarification on certain interview dates and documents.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the police.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed as abandoned or for abuse of process due to the applicant's repeated failure to cooperate with scheduling a hearing and his insistence on procedural demands.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications as abandoned because the applicant was still participating, but ordered submissions on whether proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for reconsideration of interim rulings, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the issues in dispute were within exclusive federal 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 alleged that the respondent employer discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by failing to train him on a boom truck, reducing his hours, denying a wage increase, and ultimately laying him off.

The Tribunal found that the lack of training was due to economic constraints and performance issues, not discrimination.

A discriminatory comment made by a co-worker was promptly addressed by management.

The Tribunal concluded that the reduction in hours and the layoff were due to a severe winter and poor business cash flow, and the denial of a wage increase was based on documented performance issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged that the general manager sexually harassed and assaulted her during a shift, including slapping her buttocks, unwanted sexual touching, and whipping her with a towel.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the manager's conduct amounted to discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.

The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable as the manager was its directing mind.

The Tribunal awarded $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but dismissed the claim for lost wages as the applicant quickly found alternative employment.

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

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to two letters.

The Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following a workplace injury, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred due to an ongoing union grievance and ongoing appeals before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the parallel proceedings were not yet completed.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues between the application, the grievance, and the WSIB appeals.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The respondent employer brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the applicant's union, the United Steelworkers, as a respondent, alleging the union prevented the implementation of a reasonable accommodation.

The applicant opposed the request, stating she made no allegations against the union.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations against the union by the applicant, noting the respondent could still call evidence regarding the union's actions, and concluding that adding the union at an advanced stage would cause undue delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The corporate respondent, the LCBO, brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove several personal respondents from the application.

The Tribunal applied the factors for removing personal respondents, noting that the LCBO accepted responsibility for the conduct of its employees and that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, removing several senior managers and other individuals whose continued presence as parties was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the application.

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

The applicant sought to introduce payroll records as new evidence to contradict the respondent's claims regarding his performance and reduction of hours.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the evidence was not available at the original hearing, and noted that the request was an attempt to re-argue the case rather than a valid ground for reconsideration.