HRTO 2016

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed, arguing that tuition fees and interest-bearing student loans are discriminatory against descendants of slaves.

He sought free tuition or interest-free loans, claiming that paying interest violated his religious beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that financial assistance is based on financial need rather than Code-protected grounds, and that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence linking his objection to interest to a specific religion.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer, several individual employees, and the occupational health consultants retained by the employer.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the occupational health consultants and their employer should be removed as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege facts that could constitute discrimination or reprisal by the medical consultants, as disagreements with medical judgments do not amount to discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the medical consultants and their employer, and also removed the individual employee respondents as the employer accepted full responsibility for their actions.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to exclude numerous witnesses and documents proposed by the applicant, and to compel the production of documents related to the applicant's mitigation of damages.

The Tribunal found that the proposed witnesses and certain documents were not relevant to the central issues of the case and ordered them excluded.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce a complete list of mitigation efforts and an accounting of income earned since his resignation.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and disability against a college and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities after her bursary application for disability-related services was denied.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the Ministry had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence linking the Ministry's decision to a prohibited ground of discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision (2016 HRTO 1241), alleging that the Tribunal deliberately misstated evidence regarding an altered doctor's note, which he claimed demonstrated bias and racism.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed at the hearing and that his allegations of bias rested solely on his disagreement with the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant, a tenant in social housing, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and receipt of public assistance.

He alleged that the building superintendent and management engaged in surveillance and harassment, including using secret cameras and recruiting other residents to follow him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations lacked an air of reality and the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere speculation to link the alleged incidents to any Code grounds.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and discriminatory termination by her store manager.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the touching, ongoing harassment, and discriminatory termination to be unreliable and dismissed those allegations, finding her termination was due to poor sales performance.

However, the Tribunal found that the store manager's comment to the applicant that 'the shorter the skirt the better, and show cleavage' in response to a dress code inquiry constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the manager to undergo human rights training.

The applicant failed to appear at a scheduled mediation session on September 29, 2016.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter requiring the applicant to confirm their intention to proceed by October 15, 2016, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

Having received no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witness statements.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction ordering compliance, the applicant failed to provide the required materials and suggested she might not attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary issues in a human rights application.

On consent, the personal respondents were removed from the application.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied because the issues required a hearing on the merits to resolve conflicting evidence.

The applicant was granted permission to amend her application, as the proceeding was at an early stage and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

Finally, the respondent's request for early production of documents was denied as premature, as the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances were established.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking the production of the applicant's medical and financial records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce relevant medical records.

However, because the hearing had been bifurcated, the Tribunal deferred the production of tax and income documents, noting the respondent could renew the request if the application is upheld on its merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his lack of knowledge about his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reasonable explanation for failing to make timely inquiries does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability related to workplace chemical exposure.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the discontinuation of her Loss of Earning benefits.

Finding significant factual and legal overlap concerning whether the respondent took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the WSIAT appeal to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being removed from his position as a Full Time Union Committee Person.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination was the applicant's removal from his position, not the subsequent denial of his appeal.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence to support his claim that his disability prevented him from filing in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the delivery and filing of documents, witness lists, and a Statement of Delivery by October 26, 2016.

Given the failure to comply with disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and the lack of communication with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who has mental health disabilities and uses a service dog, filed an application alleging discrimination in accommodation.

He requested an interim remedy to exempt him from the respondent condominium's rule requiring animals to be in a carrier in common areas, arguing it interfered with his need for immediate access to his service dog.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not met the significant onus for an interim remedy, as the medical evidence was speculative and the balance of harm did not favour granting the request.

The Tribunal noted that any fines levied could be compensated if a Code violation is ultimately found.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on disability after being removed from a transitional work program.

During the hearing, the Tribunal denied a request to reconsider an interim decision that disqualified the applicant's representative, an unlicensed paralegal, from acting as an unpaid friend.

On the final day of the hearing, the applicant requested the adjudicator recuse himself for bias, alleging unfairness in cross-examination rulings.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding that routine case management and evidentiary rulings do not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Following this ruling, the applicant abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal subsequently dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate access to a Service Ontario location.

The respondents requested the removal of the two owners of the corporate respondent as personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal noted that the corporate respondent's location was up for lease, raising concerns about its ability to remedy any potential Code infringement.

Consequently, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents at this preliminary stage, deferring the issue to the adjudicator hearing the merits.

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

The application was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance proceeding.

Following an arbitration award that dismissed the failure to accommodate and harassment allegations, the Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also sought to amend her application to include new allegations arising after the arbitration award.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it untimely and prejudicial to the respondent.

Applying the principles from Figliola and Penner, the Tribunal concluded that the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.