HRTO 2015

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on creed (wearing a hijab) requested orders to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent and to compel disclosure of contact information for a former employee who witnessed the alleged events.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent on consent.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to disclose the former employee's contact information to allow the applicant to call her as a witness.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the applicant's leave to appeal application to the Court of Appeal regarding a Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) decision.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted that deferral is discretionary and aimed at avoiding concurrent and potentially conflicting decisions.

Since neither the LTB nor the Divisional Court addressed the discrimination issues, the Tribunal found no significant danger of conflicting decisions.

The request for deferral was denied.

The applicant, a sole support mother of two young children, filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after her employer refused to continue accommodating her on straight day shifts.

She brought a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order that the respondent continue to schedule her on straight day shifts until the matter is resolved.

The Tribunal found that the Application raised an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and it was just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy to prevent the applicant from having to choose between her job and her children's care.

The request for an interim remedy was granted.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought three procedural requests.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike a document allegedly filed by the respondent because the document was not in the Tribunal's file.

The Tribunal granted the applicant a two-day retrospective extension of time to disclose documents, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose its arguably relevant documents within 15 days, as it had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant alleged that the respondent roofing contractor discriminated against her based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin when he discontinued services and posted derogatory comments online.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision to discontinue services was influenced by discriminatory assumptions about the applicant's background.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $1,530 in compensation for the applicant's out-of-pocket losses but declined to order an apology.