HRTO 2016

The applicant, a highly educated former senior police officer from Pakistan, applied for an Evaluation and Research Coordinator position with the respondent police service.

He was interviewed but was not the successful candidate.

He alleged discrimination on several grounds, arguing he was more qualified and that his accent negatively impacted his scores.

The Tribunal found that while one panel member gave the applicant a lower score due to difficulty understanding his accent, this did not affect the overall outcome of the competition.

The Tribunal concluded that the successful candidate performed objectively better in the interview and presentation, and dismissed the application as no discriminatory factor played a role in the hiring decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the court proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the prohibited grounds of place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

The applicant alleged he was demoted because he did not have a Canadian grade twelve education.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the amendment did not add new factual allegations and caused no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss or defer the applicant's human rights application.

The respondent argued that a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the unionized employee's claims, that the claims were already settled through the grievance process, or that the matter should be deferred pending WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that it has concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrators over human rights claims by unionized employees, that the applicant had not voluntarily agreed to the grievance settlements, and that there were no pending WSIB appeals.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding his 14-month detention in a maximum security mental health facility.

The application was filed approximately two years and nine months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had been found capable of managing his property and had actively participated in other legal proceedings during the delay period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the respondent, a finance manager at a car dealership, based on comments made in a Small Claims Court Defence and actions during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the comments in the Small Claims Court Defence were protected by absolute privilege.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no facts connecting the alleged unfair treatment to his age.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and family status, relating to work assignments and accommodation.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, consistent with its normal practice.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending an arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates regarding the arbitration.

When the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications by the extended deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant's litigation guardian filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding the respondents' school bus routing system, which resulted in the applicant spending more time on the bus in the afternoon.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not identify specific acts of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the claim related to general unfairness and arbitrariness rather than differential treatment based on age, and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine if it should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to attend the rescheduled preliminary hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned, or in the alternative, for delay.

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

After advising the Tribunal that he would not attend the scheduled mediation because he found a new position, the applicant failed to attend the mediation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant and his legal representative failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its mandatory annual food safety audit was scheduled for the same time.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the mandatory audit constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the late adjournment request, particularly given the applicant's prior failure to attend mediation.

The adjournment was granted.

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the completion of Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicants, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

After the applicants failed to respond to multiple requests, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that closed her breach of settlement application for failure to serve the respondents.

The applicant's counsel argued that an administrative oversight caused the failure to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that despite the oversight, the respondents had still not been served well beyond the six-month limitation period, and the applicant had failed to send the application to the respondents' known address.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled preliminary hearing because the litigation guardian sustained an injury preventing her from sitting or concentrating, and a witness was scheduled for surgery.

The respondent opposed the request, citing prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the guardian's physical restrictions constituted exceptional circumstances, as she is the directing mind for the minor applicant.

The adjournment request was granted.

The applicant rented a condominium unit and shortly after moving in, claimed to experience symptoms associated with mould exposure.

She alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, arguing the respondents failed to accommodate her mould sensitivity by testing for and remediating mould.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the presence of mould in the unit, as multiple tests showed normal conditions and lower airborne mould levels indoors than outdoors.

Furthermore, the respondents had agreed to financially support invasive testing, but the applicant interfered with the process and withheld rent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a male personal support worker, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of sex by refusing to assign him female clients for dressing and bathing care, and that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for claiming his human rights.

The Tribunal found that the employer's practice of accommodating female clients' requests for female personal support workers was not arbitrary and did not disadvantage the applicant, as male workers actually averaged more hours due to high demand.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed because the applicant's own evidence indicated he was constructively dismissed before he notified the employer of his human rights complaint.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging termination due to disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive document production from the respondent and third parties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the demands for employment records of other employees overbroad and invasive, the explanation for redacted privileged documents sufficient, and the bald assertion of necessity insufficient to justify third-party disclosure.