HRTO 2015

The applicant alleged he was terminated from his employment at a furniture store because of a back injury, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to performance issues, including poor sales and leaving the store unattended.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and preferred the respondent's evidence that the termination was based solely on performance issues.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his alleged disability was a factor in his termination.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and disability against a police services board and a hospital.

The applicant missed a connecting flight, exhibited unusual behaviour, and was arrested by police for public intoxication and assaulting an officer.

He was subsequently taken to a hospital where he underwent an involuntary psychiatric assessment.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions of the police officers or the doctor were based on discriminatory stereotypes or prejudices rather than the applicant's own conduct.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and established case law, the adjudicator issued an interim decision deeming 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.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed because another proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application and set a schedule for the respondents to file an amended Response and for the applicant to file an amended Reply.

The applicant alleged that the Toronto Police Services Board discriminated against him on the basis of ethnic origin, sex, and marital status during two arrests for domestic violence and breach of recognizance, a strip search, and the failure to charge his ex-girlfriend with assault.

The Tribunal found that the police officers had reasonable grounds to arrest the applicant based on the complainant's statements and his prior history.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers over the applicant, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or conduct in the arrests, the strip search, or the decision not to charge the complainant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being excluded from a volunteer tent at a local food festival.

The applicant, who volunteered for an exhibitor rather than the festival itself, claimed the exclusion was an extension of a previous ban from the respondent health centre.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was excluded because she was not a festival volunteer, and there was no evidence linking the exclusion to her disability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the individual respondent's request for anonymization, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the open justice principle.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through the union's grievance procedure.

The applicant's union had previously advised him that it would not pursue his grievances to arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a union's internal grievance procedure does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1, as it does not involve a neutral third party applying an objective legal standard.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA claim for termination and severance pay did not address the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a wage disparity allegation, but denied his premature request for early production of payroll documents.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove personal respondents, compel disclosure, defer the application due to outstanding grievances, and strike certain paragraphs.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents because the corporate respondent assumed liability for their conduct and no prejudice would result.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide disclosure by fax and to submit further documentation confirming the withdrawal of his outstanding grievances before deciding on the deferral request.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to take steps to lift a court-ordered stay related to the respondent's insolvency.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the ground of reprisal based on events occurring after the initial filing.

The respondents did not file responses to the requests.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the nature of the amendments, and the lack of objection, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment by her landlord because of her son's disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the events alleged were the subject of ongoing proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Finding an overlap between the subject matter of the application and the concurrent legal proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and law.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to file her arguably relevant documents despite multiple extensions and Case Assessment Directions.

After failing to comply with a final direction or contact the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondents, sought leave to file a new human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the new application raised essentially the same allegations as three previous applications that had been dismissed.

Concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the new application was a legitimate assertion of rights and not an abuse of process, the Tribunal denied leave to file the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin and disability, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction by failing to identify acts amounting to discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's bank statements, income tax records, and documents related to an alleged manicure business.

The respondent argued the applicant was moonlighting while claiming to be off work sick.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her banking statements for 2014 and 2015, finding them arguably relevant to post-termination income and the respondent's defence.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to produce pre-termination documents related to the manicure business or provide further submissions within 7 days.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any acts that might amount to discrimination.

The applicant was directed to file responding submissions but failed to do so.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal by her former employer.

She claimed her line manager harassed her after hiring a relative or friend of the same race, and that she was terminated after complaining to the franchise owner.

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

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence linking the alleged harassment to the applicant's race, and the reprisal claim failed because the applicant had not claimed or enforced her rights under the Code prior to her termination.