HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual, verbal, and physical harassment by a co-worker between 2002 and 2009.

She delayed filing the application because she was pursuing a claim with the WSIB, which was ultimately denied.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that pursuing WSIB benefits does not justify a failure to file a human rights application in a timely manner, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to produce medical and income records as previously ordered.

The applicant claimed she did not have the documents in her possession.

The Tribunal held that a production order requires a party to produce documents reasonably within their control, and that the requested documents (such as EI and tax records) were within the applicant's control.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but ordered the applicant to produce the documents or specifically explain her efforts to obtain them, noting that unexplained failure could lead to an adverse inference or amount to an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, disability, and sex against his former supervisor.

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

Finding that the application contained no Code-related allegations against the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer and his union based on race, colour, ethnic origin, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union respondent should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege or point to any evidence linking the union's failure to advance his grievance to arbitration to any Code-protected ground.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to contracts based on disability, place of origin, and race.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations and explain the relevance of certain evidence.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not respond to the Tribunal's final direction to confirm her intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

The parties reached a settlement at mediation, and the respondent filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

The applicant failed to file a signed Form 25 or respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing them to do so or confirm their intention to proceed to a hearing.

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

The applicant housing corporation filed an application alleging the respondent tenant breached a prior human rights settlement by sending a disparaging letter about the property manager to the board of directors.

The Tribunal found that the settlement's non-disparagement and respectful communication clauses applied to communications between the parties, and the letter constituted a breach.

Although the applicant sought $2,500 in damages primarily for legal costs, the Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to award legal costs.

Given the respondent's subsequent apology and retraction, the Tribunal awarded $250 in damages for the breach.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the production of documents and witness statements.

The applicant also failed to respond to requests for availability and failed to attend a scheduled case conference telephone call.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

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

The respondent union requested early dismissal, arguing that a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the applicant upon her return to work contained a full and final release of the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal reviewed the agreement and found that the clause in question was an indemnity for statutory deductions, not a release of claims related to the duty to accommodate.

The request for early dismissal was denied, and the applicant was directed to provide further submissions detailing her allegations against the union.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination and attach two documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, agreeing with the respondent that the amendment was unnecessary because discrimination was already alleged in the original application.

The Tribunal noted that the attached documents could be disclosed and filed in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against several respondents, including the law firm representing the condominium corporation.

The law firm requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing there was no service relationship between it and the applicant.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a lawyer representing an opposing party does not provide a service to the applicant within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as against the law firm.

The applicant, a 19-year-old man with a developmental disability and mental health issues, alleged that the respondent emergency room physician discriminated against him by failing to perform a physical examination before referring him to a crisis team.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond mere speculation that his disability was a factor in the respondent's medical decisions.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested a third adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing a temporary inability to access an email account to retrieve previously filed materials.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment, as the applicant had regained access to the materials and had ample time to prepare evidence regarding the issuance of a trespass notice.

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

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay and abuse of process, arguing the applicant was attempting to re-litigate a 2013 application that he had previously withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2012 allegations were untimely and an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding the timely allegation that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability upon his return to work in 2015.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the date conflicted with the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the respondent had been aware of the date for months.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that it would be highly prejudicial to the respondent to maintain the hearing date when its principal could not attend for religious reasons.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that the Tribunal erred by not looking behind his guilty plea to criminal charges of breach of trust, claiming he only pleaded guilty for financial reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it would be an abuse of process to permit the applicant to present evidence contrary to the facts admitted in his guilty plea.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish any criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal had previously deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal requested that the applicant's estate provide a certificate of appointment of estate trustee to authorize someone to act on its behalf.

When no one provided the required information by the extended deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a related WSIAT proceeding.

The request was filed 2.5 months late.

The respondent WSIB opposed the reactivation on the basis of delay and requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the WSIAT decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation, finding the delay was brief, due to an oversight, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the s. 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that a co-worker repeatedly made vexatious and sexually explicit comments to the applicant, constituting sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's management failed to properly investigate or address the applicant's complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim of reprisal regarding his termination, finding it was due to poor performance.

The respondent was ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to provide human rights training to its staff.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, claiming he was not hired for several positions due to his previous human rights applications.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence, beyond his own suspicions, that would establish an intention to reprise against him.

The application was dismissed.