HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an application alleging that the organizational respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to continue his medical and dental benefits, resulting in a denied claim.

The Tribunal found that a contravention occurred due to an administrative error that caused a lapse in coverage.

However, because the respondent retroactively reinstated the benefits and processed the claim as soon as it became aware of the issue, the Tribunal concluded the breach was de minimis.

The application was allowed, but the Tribunal exercised its discretion to order no remedy.

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

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

The Tribunal sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond might be deemed an abandonment of the application.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the reasons for her termination and because she signed under duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish fraudulent misrepresentation because she did not repudiate the agreement or return the severance monies.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant had four days to consider the offer and was advised to seek legal counsel.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a motion requesting that the Tribunal order the respondents to produce as witnesses the authors of all documents in their document brief.

The applicant also requested accommodation for disability-related restrictions during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to order witness production, finding the applicant failed to identify the specific witnesses or the evidence they would give, and noted that the applicant had ample time to review the documents and arrange for witnesses himself.

The Tribunal granted the accommodation request, ordering that the hearing proceed at a pace allowing the applicant to fully participate and offering the services of a Real Time Captioner.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its counsel had erroneously released the hearing dates and was scheduled to be the primary caregiver for his newborn baby.

The applicant opposed the request, noting his own prior adjournment request had been denied.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without counsel for the respondent would violate principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance regarding the termination, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the remedy sought in her human rights application to include $40,000 in general damages.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that such amendments are regularly granted up to the date of the hearing, without prejudice to the respondent's position on the appropriateness of the remedy.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination by the Toronto Police Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three requests for orders: the respondents' request to bifurcate the hearing, the applicant's request for CCTV footage from the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, and the OHRC's request for production of various police records.

The Tribunal granted the bifurcation request, ordering the hearing to proceed in three stages.

The applicant's request for CCTV footage was dismissed because the footage no longer existed.

The OHRC's requests for production were partially granted; however, the Tribunal found that section 95 of the Police Services Act prevented the disclosure of complaints made under Part V of that Act.

The applicant, an inmate, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the denial of necessary medications and his placement in protective custody.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while medical judgments are generally outside its jurisdiction, the applicant's claim that institutional policies regarding medication abuse influenced the decision raised an accommodation issue.

The Tribunal also found the protective custody allegations required further evidence.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the application alleged discrimination based on mental disability while the grievances dealt with her unjust suspension.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending a grievance process.

Following an arbitration award, the respondents requested to reactivate and dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union withdrew her related grievance.

The respondent did not oppose reactivation but requested the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the allegations fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

However, noting it had not received the applicant's medical evidence intended to explain the delay, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the medical evidence within 7 days before deciding on the request to dismiss.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a parallel claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues raised in both proceedings, including allegations of constructive dismissal, unpaid wages, and reprisal related to parental leave.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent factual findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour process.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the personal respondent was acting within the scope of his duties as a director of the condominium corporation, and that the corporation was deemed liable for his actions under section 45(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and apraxia, alleged discrimination in services after being discharged from Intensive Behavioural Intervention therapy.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his apraxia during assessments, leading to his discharge for lack of progress.

The respondent argued the discharge was a clinical decision not subject to Code review.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that, assuming the allegations to be true, it was not plain and obvious that the respondent did not act contrary to the Code.

The application was allowed to proceed to the next stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, alongside a Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that the factual basis, issues, and remedies sought in both proceedings substantially overlapped, and noted that the civil action was at a more advanced stage.

Consequently, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the civil action.

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to remove the individual respondents from the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

Because the interim decision did not finally dispose of any central issues in the application, it was not a final decision and could not be reconsidered.

The applicant, a freelance writer and volunteer community editorial board member for the Guelph Mercury, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the newspaper, the Ontario Press Council, and the Guelph General Hospital.

The applicant claimed the hospital discriminated against him based on race when responding to his inquiries for an article, and that the newspaper engaged in reprisal by removing him from the editorial board after he complained.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own beliefs connecting the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant, who is Deaf, alleged that the respondent YMCA discriminated against him by refusing to pay for an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for a meeting to update his exercise plan following surgery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was proficient in communicating via text and email, and that the meeting did not require an ASL interpreter to be effective.

The Tribunal concluded that the request for an interpreter was a preference rather than a required accommodation, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a probationary employee at a frozen yogurt shop, suffered a concussion and required time off work.

The respondent employer terminated her employment via text message, explicitly citing her absence.

The respondent failed to participate in the Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found that the termination was discriminatory on the basis of disability and awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with an order for the respondent to complete human rights training.