HRTO 2016

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, naming an employee known only as 'Ko' as a personal respondent.

The applicant requested an order directing the corporate respondent to disclose the personal respondent's last name and last known address.

The corporate respondent objected on privacy grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the corporate respondent to provide the requested information within 7 days.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation, claiming he required early production of video footage as an accommodation to refresh his memory.

The respondent requested the Application be dismissed due to the non-attendance.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss, finding non-attendance alone is not a valid reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's production request, finding it premature, lacking medical support for the accommodation claim, and moot since the respondent confirmed no such video footage exists.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that she was unrepresented, felt rushed, and did not have an opportunity to question the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, and that her disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions was not a proper basis for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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 a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for failing to establish discrimination.

The applicant alleged omissions in the decision and that a paralegal had kept her file for a week.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new determinative facts or evidence, and no compelling or extraordinary circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing through an associate, citing a need for more time to review materials and lack of computer access.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant had received the materials months prior.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, especially given the ample time the applicant had to prepare.

The applicant alleged that her former employer provided a discriminatory negative reference to a prospective employer, Dynacare, preventing her from securing a new position.

Following an interim order compelling Dynacare to produce records of the reference check, the evidence showed that the former employer provided a neutral reference confirming only employment and position, in accordance with company policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the reference was negative or discriminatory.

The applicant, a candidate for the 'None of the Above Party of Ontario', filed an application alleging discrimination based on creed after being excluded from two candidate debates.

He defined his creed as his belief that all candidates have the right to communicate with electors.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that political opinion does not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also noted it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate stand-alone Charter claims or violations of UN covenants.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that she did not want the union to raise human rights issues in her grievances.

The Tribunal found that the grievances raised similar facts and human rights issues, and that the union had carriage of the grievances.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal, claiming he was subjected to unfair treatment and fired for advocating on behalf of union members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to link the alleged bullying to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and confused protections under the Labour Relations Act with those under the Code.

As there was no allegation that the applicant was claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because the respondent bank's credit card trip cancellation insurance is only available to cardholders under 65.

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the CHRC's jurisdictional determination.

The Tribunal found that ancillary products offered by banks, such as travel insurance, fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction and declined to defer the application.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a June 2015 settlement agreement by failing to assign him scheduled escort and search duties as part of his disability accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the settlement language was clear and unambiguous in requiring these duties to be scheduled.

Although the applicant received his required working breaks, the respondent breached the settlement by not assigning the specific scheduled duties.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement but declined to award monetary compensation, finding the breach did not warrant it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, and age after an altercation on a TTC subway train, claiming a transit enforcement officer used excessive force against him but not against a white individual involved.

The respondents requested the Application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's prior conviction in absentia for causing a disturbance in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the OCJ proceeding did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' requests for a summary hearing and to remove the personal respondent, as the allegations required evidence and the personal respondent's conduct was central to the case.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration proceeding.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance arbitration were essentially identical to those in the application.

To avoid different conclusions about the facts in concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after her rental application was denied.

She brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of the successful tenant's rental application.

The respondents objected on privacy grounds.

The Tribunal found the document arguably relevant to the allegations and ordered its production, subject to redactions for sensitive personal information such as Social Insurance Numbers and contact information.

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that found them liable for refusing to allow a service animal into their restaurant and terminating an employee.

They claimed they did not receive notice of the proceedings due to mail delivery issues after moving to a new community.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence regarding the mail delivery issues and their delay in filing the request to be inconsistent, misleading, and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to prove they did not receive notice through no fault of their own, and that their request was untimely without a good faith explanation.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent university more than five years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was due to pursuing internal academic appeals and health issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that pursuing internal appeals does not constitute a separate incident of discrimination or establish good faith for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, a registered practical nurse, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age against the administrators of the nursing home where she worked.

Following a workplace injury, the applicant required ergonomic accommodations, including an adjustable chair and tilt board, which the respondents failed to provide despite recommendations from a WSIB ergonomist.

The applicant was also subjected to a discriminatory age-related comment by one of the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the respondent administrator, Celia McDougall, was personally liable for the failure to accommodate and the discriminatory comment.

The Tribunal ordered Ms. McDougall to pay $5,333.50 for lost wages and $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's family doctor's file, 2015 T4 slips, and will say statements.

The applicant objected to producing these documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her family doctor's clinical notes for the past five years with permitted redactions, her 2015 T4 slips as they are relevant to mitigation, and will say statements for any witnesses she intends to call.