HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, improper notice of layoff, and failure to accommodate workplace restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and issues, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay general damages as agreed in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, and scheduled a telephone conference call hearing to determine the remedy.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code against the Chief of Toronto Police Service and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The applicant claimed the police engaged in gender profiling by arresting him for criminal harassment based on a female complainant's allegations while ignoring his claims of being threatened.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own belief to connect the alleged unfair treatment to his gender.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated employer.

The applicant failed to respond to the notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and age against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, citing washroom graffiti and his subsequent termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the termination allegation had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration that upheld the dismissal.

The Tribunal further found that the harassment allegations were distinct from the termination, fell outside the one-year time limit, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on gender identity, slightly more than one year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that he had paid a former paralegal to file the application on time, but the representative failed to do so.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that there was no good faith explanation for the delay and ordered the application to proceed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent made unprofessional comments about him to his mother when she requested his record of employment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the events were unrelated to the discrimination allegation and occurred after the employment relationship ended.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the hearing on the merits had not yet been scheduled and the new allegations were linked to the employment outlined in the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant provided a copy of the WSIAT decision indicating the proceeding had concluded, and the respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to re-activate the application and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied a request for an interim remedy, and also brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse herself.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration because the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the central issues in the complaint.

The Tribunal also declined the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a Road Service Technician, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability after sustaining two workplace shoulder injuries.

He claimed the respondent forced him to work beyond his medical restrictions, harassed him, and targeted him.

After the applicant's testimony at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting his evasiveness and embellishment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was accommodated with modified duties and failed to establish any link between his alleged mistreatment and his disability, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

Although both parties later informed the Tribunal that the matter had been settled, the applicant failed to provide a signed settlement form or respond to further Tribunal correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in an age discrimination case brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all emails stored in his draft folder while employed by the respondent.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to particularize his request.

The applicant narrowed the request to emails between himself and a specific manager over a three-year period, asserting they contained proof of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it remained overly broad and failed to demonstrate how the specific documents sought were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Ontario New Democratic Party and James Pratt.

The applicant alleged factual errors regarding the respondent and the Federal NDP, and raised new allegations not included in the original application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and make new allegations, failing to satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his termination was discriminatory and a reprisal.

Prior to the application, his union filed a grievance for unjust termination, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer had just cause to terminate the applicant.

The applicant and union explicitly chose not to raise human rights issues at the arbitration.

The Tribunal held that the substance of the application—the termination of employment—was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

Allowing the applicant to re-litigate the termination by raising discrimination arguments that could have been raised at arbitration would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant brought a production request seeking data on the number of catheterizations performed by CCAC-funded nurses in Ontario.

The respondent argued the data was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the sheer number of catheterizations performed by nurses was not arguably relevant to whether the applicant required a nurse for his catheterizations, and that there was insufficient evidence that the requested data existed.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her family status, marital status, age, and association with a person identified by these grounds, specifically relating to her need to care for her autistic son.

After the applicant testified at the hearing on the merits, the adjudicator directed submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particularized evidence regarding her attendance issues, childcare needs, or the transfer of work to a younger employee.

Concluding that the applicant's theory of discrimination was based entirely on speculation and conjecture, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.