HRTO 2016

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination and received a settlement payment.

The Tribunal found that the release was clear and unambiguous, and that the applicant's mistaken belief that the release was conditional on an internal investigation did not invalidate it.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondents, one on behalf of another individual and one in his own name.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make written submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that the allegations and respondents were identical, and consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to be heard together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The application was previously deferred due to a CCAA stay.

The respondent requested reactivation with the consent of the Monitor, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal also directed a preliminary/summary hearing to address whether the allegations are untimely, whether they have no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the applicant's request to add individual respondents should be granted.

The respondent school board brought a request to remove two individual respondents from a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate disability-related needs.

The applicant opposed and sought to add further individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and denied the applicant's request, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment, the corporate respondent was liable for their actions, and there was no compelling juridical reason to include them as personal respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant argued that the prior grievance arbitration did not address the pattern of discrimination preceding his termination and that the union and employer had agreed not to raise human rights issues at arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the application did not allege incidents of discrimination preceding the termination, that applicants cannot split their case by restricting Code arguments at arbitration, and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario College of Teachers spanning an 11-year period.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations relating to incidents prior to 2014 as untimely, finding they did not form a series of incidents with later events.

The remaining allegations concerning a 2014 reprimand were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, primarily because the content of the reprimand was inadmissible in civil proceedings under section 48(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision over two years after the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no explanation for the inordinate delay and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The request for reconsideration was denied on the basis of delay alone.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of sex, having slept in and missed her ride.

Her counsel received instructions to abandon the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a teacher, filed two human rights applications against her school board employer and her union, alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the older allegations against the school board did not form a series of incidents with the timely ones and were dismissed for delay, as the applicant lacked a good faith explanation.

The timely allegations against both the school board and the union were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination or establishing reprisal.

Both applications were dismissed in their entirety.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on family status (eldercare) after the respondent proposed a schedule change to accommodate her physical restrictions.

The applicant claimed the new schedule interfered with her ability to care for her elderly mother but refused to provide sufficient medical or factual information to the employer to substantiate her eldercare needs.

The Tribunal clarified the test for family status discrimination, rejecting the requirement to prove legal responsibility or self-accommodation as part of the prima facie case.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish discrimination because she only informed the employer she prepared evening meals, which the new schedule did not prevent.

The application was dismissed, and the termination for job abandonment was upheld.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by the respondents, stemming from a comment made to the applicant's spouse in May 2013.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere suspicion to link the respondents' actions to his earlier complaint.

The Tribunal also dismissed the sexual harassment allegations as they were filed well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, with no good faith justification for the delay.

The applicant's human rights application was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to copy the Tribunal on his response to a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had substantially complied with the direction by providing his documents to the respondents prior to the dismissal.

Concluding that it would be unfair to uphold the dismissal without a hearing on the merits, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or subsequent communications.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued that her interpreter did not translate everything at the summary hearing and sought to introduce new facts and documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to point to any misinterpretation that affected the decision and that the facts and documents she relied upon were known to her at the time of the summary hearing.

The request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a).

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The respondent railway company sought dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that although the respondent operates an intraprovincial short line railway, it is owned by a company that operates federally-regulated railways.

By operation of s. 88(3) of the Canada Transportation Act and s. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the respondent is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide updated contact information after being released from custody.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to deliver materials to the applicant's last known address and directed the applicant to provide updated contact information and respond to the respondent's Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race.

Notices and correspondence from the Tribunal were returned marked 'Moved/unknown' and 'Return to Sender'.

The applicant failed to provide a current mailing address by the Tribunal's deadline.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment because her daughter filed an application with the Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application pending an Employment Standards Act claim due to lack of information.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedies sought, noting the early stage of proceedings and lack of prejudice.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the individual respondent as a party, finding that the corporate respondent was the appropriate party for the termination allegation and the individual's conduct was not central to the case.

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled but had not filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm the intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add further details regarding her workplace injury, allegations of harassment, and a claim for punitive damages.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing that some allegations were out of time and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the early stage of proceedings and lack of prejudice, but directed the applicant to clarify the timeliness of the 2013 allegations and remove the claim for punitive damages, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.