HRTO 2016

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions regarding a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and various individuals, claiming a police cover-up of child abuse dating back to 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the claims against the Court were barred by judicial immunity, the claims against the individuals lacked specific allegations of discrimination, and the claims against the Police Services Board were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance process.

The applicant argued that she continued to experience ongoing problems in the workplace.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no basis to exercise its discretion to reactivate the application before the grievance process concluded.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the respondents regarding an incident involving police officers.

The applications were deferred pending the conclusion of related proceedings, including SIU and OIPRD investigations and a criminal trial.

After the related proceedings concluded, three of the applications were dismissed as abandoned for failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicants filed Requests for Reconsideration and a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate the applications.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone conference call to hear submissions on the requests for reconsideration and the timeliness of the reactivation requests.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay a $15,000 settlement reached at mediation.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal found the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the agreed amount.

Applying contractual principles, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $15,000 settlement amount, plus $5,000 in general damages for the emotional harm and distress caused by the breach, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application alleging discrimination regarding accommodation for a disability.

The applicant provided a declaration stating she is in hospice care and considered terminal.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, finding that the applicant's terminal illness constituted urgent circumstances requiring expedition to ensure a fair and just resolution.

The Tribunal abridged the time for the respondents to file their Responses to 7 days and offered to schedule an early mediation if the respondents agreed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against a university, a college of physicians, and an individual physician.

The applicant sought to amend the application to add new grounds of discrimination, including race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and sex, and to seek additional public interest remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application without prejudice to the respondents' positions.

The Tribunal also directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be held to address several issues, including whether the application has no reasonable prospect of success, whether it is barred by statutory immunity, whether it is out of time, and whether the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after her landlord denied a transfer request and subsequently evicted her.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the denial of the transfer or the eviction to her disability or receipt of public assistance.

The eviction was ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board due to the illegal activities of the applicant's son.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred before September 22, 2014, making the September 28, 2015 application untimely.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish that her delay was incurred in good faith, as her explanations regarding an abusive relationship, financial hardship, and unstable health were vague and did not explain her inability to file on time.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application against Loblaws Inc. to add an allegation regarding discriminatory payments.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the allegation had already been dismissed at a preliminary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the applicant provided no new evidence to establish a link between the payments and the disability.

The applicants requested to add two individuals, Ryan Lucier and Jim Laframboise, as personal respondents to their human rights applications against Net Gravity Commerce Inc. The Tribunal considered the principles for adding personal respondents, noting that the allegations concerned the conduct of the two individuals and there were questions about the corporate respondent's ability to pay damages.

The Tribunal granted the request and added the individuals as respondents.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to add a personal respondent, amend the application to include an allegation of reprisal, and order the production of documents.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal ordered the production of text messages and employment contracts, finding them relevant to the issues and potential compensation.

The requests to add a party and amend the application were deferred to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied an adjournment and directed that two applications be addressed at the same preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, 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 alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age after his employment was terminated at age 46.

He claimed his performance ratings dropped and he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after a vice president learned his age.

The Tribunal found that the vice president had no role in managing the applicant's performance or the decision to terminate him.

The respondent provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, specifically a reduction in headcount and the applicant's average performance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a daycare worker, alleged she developed a disability in her arm and shoulder due to heavy lifting at work, and that her employment was terminated when she requested accommodation and time off.

The respondent maintained that the applicant had resigned during a staff meeting and that her subsequent requests for accommodation were an attempt to resile from her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed resigned and had not requested accommodation prior to doing so.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her disability was a factor in the termination of her employment, and dismissed the application.

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

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's decision to reduce the applicant's social assistance payments to recover a 2002 overpayment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence, beyond mere speculation, to link the recovery of the overpayment to his race or any other protected ground.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and creed by an Employment Standards Officer during a fact-finding meeting and in her subsequent decision, as well as by the Ministry of Labour in its response to his complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the Application, finding that the Employment Standards Officer's decision was protected by adjudicative immunity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the alleged unfair treatment was connected to his sex or creed.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order for particulars and an extension of time to file their Response, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained enough information about the alleged discrimination based on disability and sexual orientation for the respondents to understand the claims and file a general response.

The respondents failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to order particulars at this preliminary stage.

The applicant's former counsel filed a Request to Intervene in a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process due to a prior settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the former counsel may have relevant information regarding the settlement.

The intervention was limited to providing oral or written submissions at the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached two terms of a prior settlement agreement.

The first term required individual respondents to complete an online human rights course, and the second related to the destruction of the applicant's fingerprints and photograph.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondents had completed the course, and that the allegation of breach was untimely under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Regarding the records, the Tribunal found no breach, as the settlement acknowledged that jurisdiction over destruction rested with the RCMP, not the respondent, and the respondent had requested the destruction.

The application was dismissed.