HRTO 2016

The applicant, a candidate for the 'None of the Above Party of Ontario', sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He had alleged discrimination based on creed after being excluded from two candidate debates.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application, finding that political beliefs do not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Charter claims.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found no new facts, errors of law, or conflict with established jurisprudence to justify overturning the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions in the Police Services Act make materials from OIPRD proceedings inadmissible before the Tribunal.

The respondent was directed to file a Response.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's union had filed two grievances that substantially overlapped with the facts and human rights issues in the application, including allegations of harassment, discrimination, and termination.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings where a grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of another proceeding and later requested a status update, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the requested update.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file hearing materials by a specified date.

When neither party complied, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction setting a new deadline and warning the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents complied with the new deadline, but the applicant did not file the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The application was deferred pending a union grievance, which was subsequently settled.

The applicant sought to reactivate the application.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and the applicant was bound by its resolution.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Nurses of Ontario during its fitness to practise and disciplinary proceedings against her.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application was based almost exclusively on information, documents, and decisions from the College's proceedings, which are strictly inadmissible in civil proceedings under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Without this evidence, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to produce medical records and other materials, which the applicant failed to do.

The applicant subsequently failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear and failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, including issues with hearing dates, inability to provide evidence, and incorrect information in previous decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue her case and failed to establish any procedural unfairness or meet the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a former Pizza Nova franchisee, alleged discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

He claimed the respondents harassed and pressured him into selling his franchise.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, citing numerous material breaches of the Franchise Agreement, including poor cleanliness, unauthorized ingredients, and customer complaints.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and several of its employees regarding the handling of his workers' compensation claim.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations amounted to a challenge of decisions made under a benefit program, which falls outside its jurisdiction absent evidence connecting the treatment to a protected ground.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence that the respondents' actions were intended as a reprisal for his discrimination complaints.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, a Black African Canadian, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, arising from two incidents at the respondent library.

In the first incident, a library employee retrieved a high-demand book from the applicant after realizing his library card was expired.

In the second incident, staff refused to print a document for the applicant from a staff computer, citing a recent directive.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced adverse treatment, there was no evidence connecting the treatment to his race or colour.

The staff's actions were found to be in good faith compliance with library policies and directives.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine whether the litigation guardian should be removed.

The applicant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging termination due to a workplace injury.

After retaining counsel, the applicant requested an order to amend the Application to add factual particulars, correct the respondent's name, and increase the remedy sought, as well as an extension of time to file a Reply.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors for amending pleadings and granted the request, noting it was made at an early stage before mediation and the proposed amendments clarified the allegations.

The applicant was granted 14 days to file a Reply.

The applicant, a person with autism, alleged discrimination in services after being denied access to the respondent's specialized transit service, TransHelp.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against the Regional Municipality of Peel required a full hearing to assess the evidence and the respondent's compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the individual respondents who sat on the eligibility appeal panel, as they had no discretion to deviate from the established assessment criteria.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging racial harassment be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with in a prior Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) proceeding.

The LTB proceeding was initiated by the respondent's landlords to terminate his tenancy based on complaints, including one from the applicant superintendent.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the applicant was not a party to the LTB proceeding and the LTB did not address the issue of racial harassment or any other Code grounds.

The applicant, a former business agent and secretary/treasurer of the respondent union local, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

He claimed that after disclosing his depression and anxiety, the respondent failed to accommodate him and subjected him to harassing communications and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, his communications did not amount to a request for accommodation that triggered the respondent's duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's communications were not harassing or reprisal, but rather standard oversight and requests to perform essential duties.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request.

After being granted an extension, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engages in regular and continuous transportation of goods beyond provincial boundaries, placing its operations under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding a requirement to microchip her dog.

She sought an interim remedy to prevent the respondent from enforcing a $205 fine or issuing further fines.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to include the required declaration under Rule 23.3 and failed to demonstrate that an interim remedy was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.