HRTO 2015

The applicant, a student who identified as black and had a learning disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in discipline and special education placements.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of various documents, including suspension records, yearbooks, and photographs of other students to establish systemic discrimination.

The respondent school board opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, burdensome, and sought irrelevant or privileged information.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, ordering the production of anonymized data and records within the temporal scope of the application, finding the information arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations of systemic discrimination.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests for confidentiality orders and the addition of personal respondents.

The applicant alleged discrimination by a Children's Aid Society and its employees regarding his concerns about his child's care.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to seal the file, close the hearing, and anonymize the applicant's name to protect the child's identity under section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add two employees as personal respondents, finding their conduct central to the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry regarding his lay-off and a failure to accommodate.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance raising substantially the same facts and issues regarding disability accommodation and lay-off.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights Application alleging that the respondent employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex by terminating her employment because of her pregnancy.

The applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act claim regarding the same termination, which was currently under appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the two proceedings overlapped significantly and that proceeding concurrently would create a risk of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered that the human rights Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the remaining issues should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the school board and the teachers' union.

The respondent school board filed requests for a summary hearing and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant at this time, but directed the parties to refrain from filing further requests for orders during proceedings until a preliminary hearing is completed to determine the scope of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability against his former employer.

The employment relationship ended in 1999, and the applicant had previously pursued complaints through the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the courts, all of which were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations related to events outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings under section 45.1.

The applicant, an African-Canadian woman, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code violation and were sufficiently plausible.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Registrar's letter inquiring whether she intended to proceed with the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a union organizer of Italian/Sicilian descent, filed a human rights application alleging that his employer failed to properly investigate his internal complaint regarding a co-worker's harassing comments about his nationality.

The Tribunal applied the three-part Laskowska test to assess the reasonableness of the employer's investigation.

The Tribunal found that the employer had a suitable anti-harassment policy, promptly and reasonably investigated the complaint through an independent third-party investigator, and provided a reasonable resolution by issuing verbal warnings to both employees involved.

The application was dismissed.

Four employees of the respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order reinstating the applicant to his former position as Manager of Emergency Medical Services.

The employees, who had testified about the applicant's workplace harassment, argued that his return would cause them significant mental health consequences.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employees lacked standing as they were not parties to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also declined to reconsider the decision on its own initiative, noting that the employees' concerns were addressed at the original hearing and that the reinstatement order included conditions to repair workplace relationships.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to prepare and deliver witness statements and documents by the specified deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that failure to comply by an extended deadline could result in dismissal, the applicant again failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after seeking employment as a school bus driver with the corporate respondent.

The respondents sought dismissal on the basis that the corporate respondent provides inter-provincial transportation services and is therefore a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent is a federal undertaking pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add factual details, list new witnesses, and increase the remedy sought.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing prejudice, untimeliness, and that the amendments expanded the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments did not significantly expand the scope of the original allegations of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, and that the request was made at an early stage of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the discrimination claim, which included allegations of discriminatory comments and adverse treatment regarding sales territories and supplies, had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed it to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the respondent intentionally breached the applicant's privacy in retaliation for her asserting her rights under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability when the respondent failed to readmit her into its chiropractic program with accommodation.

She brought requests for an interim remedy ordering her readmission into the third year of the program and to expedite the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour it and it was not just and appropriate, as readmission would create a new state of affairs and bypass important questions for the full hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's 19-month delay in bringing the request and finding no urgent resolution was required.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the Toronto Police Service and an individual officer following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed the police failed to properly investigate the accident in reprisal for a prior human rights application he had filed against unrelated respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding no factual foundation connecting the alleged denial of police services to any protected ground or the prior application, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination brought several requests for interim orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to have his doctor testify by telephone, finding it appropriate for medical professionals.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's broad requests for his employment file and grievance records for lacking specificity.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent employer to obtain and disclose the applicant's Sun Life benefits file, as the discontinuance of benefits was central to the discrimination claims.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its representative was out of town on business.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, late adjournment requests are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

Business travel does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after it was deferred pending a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The corporate respondent did not oppose reactivation but sought an extension of time to file its Response until after receiving a related Peel Regional Police Services report.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and found an extension of time unnecessary, as the respondents had 35 days from the reactivation date to file their Responses under the Tribunal's rules.