HRTO 2016

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on disability against a condominium corporation, its management, and its legal counsel.

The respondent law firm brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the applications against it, arguing it was retained by the condominium corporation and had no service relationship with the applicants.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a condominium corporation is a distinct legal entity from its unit owners, and the law firm was in an adversarial relationship with the applicants.

The request to dismiss the applications against the law firm was granted.

The applicant requested that her doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference because the doctor now lives in Whitehorse.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that such requests are frequently granted when credibility is unlikely to be an issue.

The applicant, through his litigation guardian, alleged discrimination in education services based on disability.

The respondent school board requested an order permitting it to access the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) to prepare its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the OSR was necessary to make full answer and defence to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The applicant was ordered to provide written consent to the disclosure, failing which the application could be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in his termination, over six years after the termination and four years after the last alleged incident.

He had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal that included the same age discrimination allegations.

Although the applicant indicated an intention to drop the human rights claims from his civil action, he had not formally amended his pleadings before filing the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed out of time and was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action had not been withdrawn prior to the application being made.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employer changed her shift upon her return from maternity leave, which interfered with her childcare arrangements.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement withdrawing a grievance on the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and settlement covered the same human rights allegations and that the applicant was not under duress when she signed the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following his termination.

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement, with union advice, that included a full and final release of all claims in exchange for a $15,000 lump sum.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under economic and psychological duress and without reading it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had the capacity to understand the clear terms of the release, received sufficient consideration, and failed to establish that he was subjected to illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion of his will.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and subsequent correspondence.

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

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIAT proceeding.

The WSIAT allowed the applicant's appeal regarding his workplace injury, though the precise calculation of benefits remained pending.

The respondents opposed re-activation until the benefits were calculated and also requested production of the WSIAT hearing documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding the substantive WSIAT issues had concluded, eliminating the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' document production request as premature and ordered the applicant to provide information regarding his bankruptcy status.

The applicant estate alleged that the deceased, an Aboriginal woman with mental and physical disabilities, experienced discrimination while a patient at the respondent hospitals.

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

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to physical disability care, a hospital transfer, toxicology testing, and a visitor policy, finding them to be clinical decisions or lacking a human rights nexus.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that restricting the patient's access to hand sanitizer was based on stereotypes about Aboriginal people and alcohol to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of union grievances.

The applicant wished to pursue the matter at the Tribunal and asked her union to withdraw the grievances, but refused to sign a release required by the union for the withdrawal.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the grievances were still scheduled for arbitration and the request was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to choose her forum, and since she clearly intended to abandon the grievance process, requiring formal withdrawal of the grievances would be an unnecessary technicality.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant alleged discrimination in the provision of personal support services after the respondent replaced her personal support worker.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were covered by a prior settlement.

The Tribunal found the central allegation occurred after the settlement release date and could not be dismissed under section 45.1.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence to link the change in worker to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID).

Although the applicant provided missing information, she failed to provide submissions regarding the NOID despite multiple extensions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after the respondent newspaper refused to publish two of his articles.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add the newspaper's editor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found no compelling reason to add the personal respondent, as the editor's actions were in the course of his employment and there were no allegations supporting a finding against him personally.

The request was denied.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination based on disability against his employer and two individual supervisors regarding his return to work and accommodation.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondents and strike allegations from 2013 due to delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike the 2013 allegations, finding they could form part of the narrative.

The self-represented applicant requested to reopen his case after the hearing of evidence had concluded, in order to call a witness whose contact information he had previously lost.

The respondent objected but pointed to no specific prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the factors for reopening a case and found that the witness's evidence was relevant and potentially key, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by allowing cross-examination and reply evidence.

The request to adduce new evidence was granted to ensure a fair and just adjudication.

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 despite multiple notices and an extension of time.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of not responding.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant was directed to provide further clarification regarding the alleged breach and the remedy sought.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, as well as reprisal for a previous application.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, and alternatively, that the individual respondents be removed.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could point to evidence supporting his claims of discrimination and reprisal regarding his sick leave and rumours of an extra-marital affair.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the individual respondents at this stage, as their conduct was central to the reprisal allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Peel Regional Police, Windsor Police Services, and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the bank on the basis of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that banking falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application against Toronto-Dominion Bank was dismissed, while the application against the other respondents was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to the denial of short-term disability benefits, family status accommodation, and creed.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application because the applicant had previously commenced a Small Claims Court action for breach of contract regarding the same denial of disability benefits.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the overlap in factual and legal issues and the more advanced stage of the civil proceeding weighed in favour of deferring the human rights application to avoid inconsistent decisions.