HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age, disability, and reprisal.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant conceded that the alleged incidents occurred more than a year before the application was filed and provided no good faith reason for the delay.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status regarding her termination.

The applicant's union concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance process.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial factual overlap and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings continued concurrently.

The applicant, a real estate sales agent, alleged that the personal respondent, the broker of record, subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious comments about the applicant's appearance and subjected her to unwanted physical contact, including hugging and touching her shoulder.

The Tribunal concluded that this conduct amounted to sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a workplace sexual harassment policy.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related court proceeding.

The applicant argued she was no longer involved with the respondent, but the respondent noted the court proceedings remained outstanding.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that a deferred application can only be reactivated once the underlying court proceeding has concluded.

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

She simultaneously filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a related entity.

The respondents sought early dismissal, arguing the matter fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction as a broadcaster.

Given the uncertainty regarding the corporate relationships and whether the applicant was employed by a federal or provincial undertaking, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

Both the applicant and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the grievances involved the same facts and human rights issues, including allegations of workplace violence.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration processes.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any new determinative evidence, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed after the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Case Assessment Directions requiring her to produce documents related to her WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any new facts or evidence, nor did she prove a lack of notice regarding the proceedings or the required disclosures.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates for medical reasons, supported by a doctor's note indicating her condition interfered with day-to-day matters.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and that the applicant had the condition when she filed the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's medical condition constituted an exceptional circumstance under the Practice Direction on Scheduling, and that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to anonymize his name in the style of cause, citing stigma related to his mental disability and the respondents' alleged lack of transparency.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization request on an interim basis, noting that sensitive medical evidence regarding the applicant's mental disability would likely be required if the matter proceeded to a hearing.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to refrain from filing unauthorized replies to Responses to RFOPs in the future.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against him after he reported a colleague's improper conduct.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors warranting reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal reiterated that the Human Rights Code only protects against reprisals for claiming or enforcing rights under the Code, not general retaliation for reporting a colleague.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction and two Interim Decisions, and sought a stay of proceedings pending judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the decisions were either not final or that the applicant failed to establish grounds for reconsideration, such as new evidence or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a stay pending judicial review, finding no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour further delaying the proceeding.

The corporate respondent, Balan International, requested the removal of two personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and marital status.

The applicant and the other corporate respondent did not provide submissions.

Applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, gender identity, record of offences, and association, as well as reprisal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2013 allegations had been resolved by a prior grievance settlement, and the remaining allegations regarding the applicant's termination for unsupported bereavement leaves had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground or reprisal.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging that a police raid of her home was fuelled by racial profiling.

She also filed a complaint with the OIPRD.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applications pending the OIPRD proceeding.

The respondents supported deferral, but the Tribunal declined to defer, noting that OIPRD findings do not automatically lead to dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code and that OIPRD investigative materials are inadmissible in Tribunal proceedings due to statutory privilege.

The Tribunal also proposed consolidating the three applications.

The respondent requested that the second day of the scheduled hearing be adjourned early to accommodate its counsel's teaching schedule.

The applicant did not respond to the request or the Tribunal's subsequent inquiry.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the second day of the hearing to end at 1:00 p.m. and to commence an hour early at 9:00 a.m. to make up for lost time.

The applicant, a mobile security guard, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability, specifically his need for time off for surgery.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to restructuring and performance issues, and denied knowledge of the surgery request.

The Tribunal found that the Division Manager was likely aware of the surgery request prior to the termination and that it was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was tainted by discrimination and awarded the applicant $7,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to consider his extensive submissions before dismissing the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was essentially attempting to appeal the decision and presented no new facts or other grounds to justify a reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with similar allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.