HRTO 2016

The applicant, a sous chef, alleged discrimination and reprisal against his former employer, a restaurant.

He claimed a co-worker made racist comments ("go back to your own country" and a racial slur) and that the owner failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.

Two shifts after reporting the incident and threatening to go to the labour board, the applicant was terminated.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's comments were discriminatory, the employer's investigation was flawed and lacked neutrality, and the termination was at least in part a reprisal for the applicant asserting his human rights.

The Tribunal awarded $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages, and ordered public interest remedies including policy development and human rights training.

The applicant requested to amend the remedy sought in her human rights application, which the Tribunal granted as the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel and potential witnesses might be subpoenaed for a Superior Court trial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the potential scheduling conflict was tentative and did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to comply with their overdue disclosure obligations.

The applicant, a high school teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his needs regarding course assignments.

The respondents argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant refused to produce his doctors for cross-examination regarding medical notes that suggested he should only teach courses he felt capable of teaching.

The Tribunal held that while the applicant could not rely on the contentious medical statements without producing the doctors, the application should not be dismissed at this stage, as other non-medical evidence could potentially substantiate the failure to accommodate claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, goods, services, and facilities based on colour and place of origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After being granted an extension to file submissions, the applicant failed to do so or communicate further with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested hearing accommodations, specifically to testify via videoconference from a separate room due to major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder allegedly resulting from the personal respondent's actions.

The respondents objected, arguing the disability was not conclusively linked to the allegations and emphasizing the need for in-person testimony for credibility assessment.

The Tribunal granted the accommodation, finding sufficient medical evidence supported the request and noting that the accommodation was required for Code-related needs regardless of whether the allegations were ultimately proven.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The original application alleged that a 'no dogs' sign on the respondent's building expressed an intention to discriminate against him because he uses a service dog, contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant merely reiterated arguments from the summary hearing and failed to identify any factors under Rule 26 that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Dominion Bank Group and Allegis Global Solutions alleging discrimination in respect of contracts.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the bank as abandoned after the applicant failed to provide submissions regarding the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over federally regulated employers.

Regarding Allegis, the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference hearing to determine whether proceeding against Allegis would be an abuse of process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination claim regarding the denial of an employment start-up benefit but upheld her claim regarding subcontracting rules.

The applicant alleged new evidence, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and procedural unfairness, including allegations of bias against the adjudicators.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that her arguments were primarily in the nature of an appeal and that the Tribunal's procedures were appropriate.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to change the non-monetary and public interest remedies sought regarding autism supports in schools.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting that no hearing date had been set, recent government announcements potentially altered the background facts, and the respondent did not oppose the amendment.

The applicant, a former teacher, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, and several of its officers.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to unfair representation and failure to file grievances, but lacked any factual foundation connecting the union's actions to a Code-protected ground.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the applicant had not asserted a Code right.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and disability against the City of Ottawa and a city councillor regarding a parking variance dispute.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of disability discrimination and discrimination related to a garbage warning, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed an amendment clarifying an $800 fine and directed the respondents to file a response to the remaining allegations of racial discrimination.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former landlords, their legal representative, and the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), alleging discrimination based on disability related to pest infestations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the LTB and the legal representative for lack of jurisdiction, noting it cannot review decisions of other tribunals and the Code does not cover the relationship with an opposing party's legal representative.

The application against the landlords was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, as the substance of the allegations had already been appropriately dealt with in prior LTB proceedings.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed grievances under her collective agreement raising the same facts and issues, which had been referred to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its usual practice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied a request to amend the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Crown Attorney based on creed and record of offences.

The allegations stemmed from the Crown Attorney filing submissions with the Supreme Court of Canada opposing the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after receiving submissions, dismissed the application.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to supervise the Courts or the decisions of a Crown Attorney, as such decisions are protected by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employment was terminated because of his disability.

Prior to filing the application, his union had filed a grievance regarding the termination, which was referred to arbitration.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance did not raise human rights issues and that the Tribunal must first determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the grievance and application both related to the termination, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and that the Tribunal has discretion to determine the order in which issues are considered.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of ongoing discrimination and harassment.

The respondent opposed the amendments and requested that the Application be deferred, arguing the new allegations were the subject of ongoing workplace grievances.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his grievances, indicating his intent to pursue the matters exclusively before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal declined to defer the Application to the grievance process and granted the applicant's request to amend his Application, directing the respondent to file its Response.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing them to advise of their intentions regarding the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.