HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal declared the respondents in default, deemed them to have accepted all allegations in the Application, and waived their rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case and seek remedies.

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

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to mental health issues and duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant lacked capacity to understand the agreement or that he signed under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that proceeding with it would be an abuse of process.

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

The parties consented to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled session.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm his intentions regarding the application by a specified date, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent police services board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal had an unwritten rule favouring police officers and sought reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely expressing disagreement with the original decision and attempting to reargue his case, which does not outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal continue to hold his human rights application in abeyance for a further six months due to his medical condition.

The applicant provided a medical note indicating an inability to participate in a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the abeyance period, but noted that any future requests for extension may require the doctor to provide evidence in person or by telephone.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations leading up to her departure from the respondent inn.

The respondents did not oppose the amendment but requested a summary hearing, arguing the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application and denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing, finding that a hearing on the merits was necessary to resolve the issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his production request.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application after the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the personal respondent.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the parties to file a copy of the court's decision in the criminal proceeding.

The respondent school board requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal overlap between the application, which alleged 16 instances of discrimination and failure to accommodate, and the grievance, which related to a single incident of excessive discipline.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not initiate the grievance and it was at an early stage.

The applicant, a volunteer Chief Flight Instructor at a model aviation club, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal after being asked to step down from his position.

The respondents claimed the decision was due to significant interpersonal conflict caused by the applicant, not his age, although an email sent to the applicant cited a desire to promote younger members.

The Tribunal found that the email's reference to age was a pretext to avoid addressing the conflict, and that the applicant knew age was not the real reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim regarding internet forum posts made by the personal respondent, finding that the applicant's allegation of age discrimination was not made in good faith, and therefore he was not entitled to protection under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's estate sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the resolution of an overlapping union grievance.

The union and the respondent had reached a settlement prior to the applicant's death.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate but ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to correct the corporate respondent's name and add the social area of 'goods, services and facilities'.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments were appropriate and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Storm failed to hire him because of his age, race, and association when it took over a coil repair contract from his former employer, Outotec.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against Outotec and AMD, removing them as respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim against Storm to proceed to a full hearing, but dismissed the other grounds for lack of evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex after being denied access to a sick leave plan following a car accident on maternity leave.

Her union had previously filed a grievance on the same issue, which was resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend her application with administrative complaints and dismissed the application, finding that the grievance proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unlicensed individual who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for providing legal services without a licence.

The Tribunal found that the representative did not fall within the exemption for an unpaid friend or neighbour, as he was acting in more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed from the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unpaid member of an unincorporated housing cooperative alliance.

The Tribunal previously declared the representative a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for unlicensed persons.

The Tribunal found that the representative did not fall within the exemption for a volunteer from an appropriate organization, nor the exemption for an unpaid friend, as he was providing legal services in more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unlicensed individual who claimed to be an unpaid member of an unincorporated housing alliance.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for unlicensed legal service providers.

The Tribunal found that the housing alliance was not an appropriate organization under the Practice Direction and that the representative was acting in more than three matters per year, violating the Law Society's By-Law 4.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed from the proceeding.

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

The Tribunal questioned whether her unlicensed representative, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, met the Law Society's exemptions for providing legal services.

The applicant argued he was an unpaid member of a housing alliance or an unpaid friend.

The Tribunal found the alliance was not a recognized organization and that the representative was acting in more than three matters per year, violating the Law Society's By-Law 4 limit for unpaid friends.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed.

The applicant, a legal assistant/paralegal, alleged that the individual respondent, who owned the respondent organization, subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual advances in the workplace.

When she rejected his advances, he retaliated by refusing to pay her wages, forcing her to resign.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including unwanted text messages and solicitations, which amounted to sexual harassment.

The Tribunal also found that the failure to pay the applicant for over two months was a reprisal for rejecting the advances.

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $29,400 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, lost income, and future counselling.

The applicant, a surgeon, sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent hospitals to hold a hearing regarding his medical privileges during normal business hours, citing family status obligations including childcare and eldercare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus for an interim remedy, as the evidence did not establish that his family members would be without care if he attended an evening hearing, and a complete remedy could still be awarded if a Code violation were ultimately found.