HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin following his termination.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress and without adequate legal advice.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and was not subjected to illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion of his will.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested the removal of two individual respondents from an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The organizational respondent acknowledged liability for any acts or omissions of the individual respondents in relation to the dispute.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as they were acting in the course of their employment and the corporate respondent could fully respond to the allegations and any remedial orders.

The request to remove the individual respondents was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the individual respondents.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the allegations against the individual respondents abandoned and removed them from the application.

The style of cause was amended to name the Peel District School Board as the correct organizational respondent, and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and marital status.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal for abandonment.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal or file the required materials, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability be dismissed or deferred pending the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the WSIB's denial of benefits did not deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the WSIAT appeal was unlikely to address the discrimination and accommodation issues raised in the application.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by closing vehicular access to a public beach, the parties agreed on a plan to provide access for visitors with mobility impairments.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to construct barrier-free parking spaces at the east end of the beach, install speed bumps, and adjust gates to control traffic while ensuring accessibility.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent school board failed to grant him interviews for 42 long-term occasional teaching positions.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior arbitral proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the arbitrator only dealt with the implementation of a regulation under the Education Act and did not address the applicant's human rights complaints.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability after sustaining a work-related injury.

She claimed the respondents required her to perform work exceeding her disability-related restrictions, harassed her when she was sent home, made inappropriate comments to her disability insurer, and failed to properly investigate her harassment complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to show the work exceeded her restrictions.

The Tribunal also found that the supervisor's conduct did not amount to harassment, the comments to the insurer were inappropriate but not discriminatory, and the employer's investigation was reasonable in the circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicants filed applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicants to deliver and file documents and witness lists by a specified deadline, warning that failure to comply could result in the applications being deemed abandoned.

Neither applicant responded to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory dismissal based on disability.

In its response, the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant alleging unjust termination.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the issues in the grievance and the application were sufficiently similar and that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral to the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination 27 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to difficulty finding counsel, difficulty filling out the form, and the recent death of his father.

The Tribunal found these explanations did not establish good faith delay, noting the father's death occurred after the application was filed.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicants brought human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications on consent, removed a deceased respondent on consent, allowed the applicant to amend her application to add new allegations and remedies, permitted the applicants to withdraw their claims against one respondent, granted a partial extension of time for filing a reply, and dismissed a premature request for document production.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging reprisal and failure to accommodate.

The applicant argued that relevant medical information was not produced at the original hearing and suggested the respondent withheld documents.

The Tribunal found that the medical information provided with the reconsideration request dated back to 2006 and did not constitute new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing.

Concluding that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria required under Rule 26 to justify re-opening a final decision, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer.

During the pre-hearing and hearing process, the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions to provide documents and witness statements, and engaged in disrespectful and abusive communications towards the Tribunal and respondent's counsel.

After the first day of hearing, the applicant was directed to provide written confirmation that he would abide by the Tribunal's expectations of appropriate conduct.

The applicant failed to provide this confirmation despite multiple warnings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, and alternatively as an abuse of process.

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

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously executed a full and final release settling a wrongful dismissal claim that included similar allegations.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under duress due to the mediator's behaviour and without knowing her expenses should have been covered.

The Tribunal found no duress, noting the applicant was represented by counsel and supported by her husband during mediation.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, and sex, culminating in her termination.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's termination under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a prior grievance arbitration had already appropriately dealt with the substance of those claims by determining she was terminated for just cause (dishonesty) rather than disability discrimination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegations, finding them to be either untimely, not part of a continuous series of incidents, or lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of another proceeding.

The applicant provided a decision from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board indicating the other proceeding had concluded.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the other proceeding was concluded, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

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

A hearing was scheduled and the applicant was provided with notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The self-represented respondents attended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the respondent university for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the university failed to accommodate his post-concussion syndrome during a comprehensive exam.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator did not depart from established jurisprudence when she concluded the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking the adverse impact he experienced to his disability.