HRTO 2016

The respondent in a human rights application requested a summary hearing, an adjournment, and bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The Tribunal had previously denied the summary hearing request and reaffirmed that denial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no basis for the respondent's concern regarding witness inconvenience.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing, concluding that it would be more efficient to determine liability first given the contested facts and the anticipated volume of evidence regarding both liability and remedies.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the summary hearing should have been canceled after he withdrew the application against one of the respondents, and raised concerns about the proper identification of the remaining respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had been clearly informed that the hearing was proceeding and that he could have raised his concerns at that time.

His failure to participate did not provide a basis for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age, three and a half years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to pursuing other legal avenues, including a grievance, an Employment Standards Act claim, a Duty of Fair Representation complaint, and a small claims court action.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and other grounds, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration board had jurisdiction to hear the human rights issues, explicitly considered the employer's duty to accommodate, and awarded the applicant $20,000 in human rights damages.

Concluding that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation file regarding the applicant's complaint.

The SIU opposed production of the Director's Report, an FOI request, and witness statements.

The Tribunal ordered the SIU to produce the witness statements, finding them arguably relevant to credibility and outweighing confidentiality concerns.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the Director's Report and FOI request, finding them not arguably relevant to the human rights proceeding.

The applicants, a married couple, filed human rights applications against their landlord, the building superintendent, and two other tenants, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination based on disability, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the husband's application entirely and most of the wife's allegations, finding no evidence to support claims of a retaliatory noise campaign or discrimination based on disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the wife's allegations of sexual harassment against the superintendent and the corporate landlord's failure to investigate to continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board and several personal respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization on consent.

The applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to psychological strain was denied, as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding because the school board conceded liability for their actions in the course of employment.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application, except for allegations relating to settlement discussions and counsel conduct.

A request for document production was denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

Before filing its Response, the respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to produce her occupational health file, arguing it was necessary to meaningfully respond.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the Response or granting early production of the documents, as the respondent had made its decisions based on the information available to it at the time.

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

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing and filing hearing materials as directed, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant, a student at a private career college, alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and other grounds after being removed from class and subsequently dismissed from the college.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success or because a Ministry investigation had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to sex and family status, as well as general complaints about the program, for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the race-related allegations regarding the applicant's removal from class and dismissal to proceed to a full hearing.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the Ministry investigation did not deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent delayed making a decision on his benefits claim.

After the respondent denied the claim, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further information and confirm his intent to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Case Assessment Direction.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability when it assigned him bag and broom duties.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a prior labour arbitration concerning the applicant's suspension and termination.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had implicitly rejected the failure to accommodate claim when determining the employer had just cause for discipline.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and improper re-litigation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment.

After the Tribunal noted the application was incomplete because it lacked an address for the personal respondent, the applicant requested an order directing the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's last known address.

The corporate respondent objected, arguing the address was private information not within its right to disclose.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the corporate respondent to disclose the address pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and section 43(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination when she was denied the ability to sit and drink her coffee at a Bagel World franchise.

The franchisee subsequently went bankrupt, and the applicant sought to hold the franchisor vicariously liable.

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

Finding that the franchise agreement and evidence demonstrated the franchisor did not exercise substantial control over the day-to-day operations or employees of the franchisee, the Tribunal concluded the franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application against the franchisor was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer on the basis of race, colour, marital status, family status, and record of offences.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations were timely and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the incidents from 2013 were untimely, did not form a series of incidents with the 2015 allegations, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The timely 2015 allegations of reprisal were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to her protected grounds or her prior human rights complaint.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to claim $25,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity and self-respect, having originally sought $1.

The respondent opposed the late request, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that amendments to remedial claims have been allowed up to the start of a hearing, and addressed any potential prejudice by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, marital status, and age.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed late and that the applicant's explanation of lacking the courage to file earlier did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a person with disabilities receiving ODSP benefits, sought to start a business using subcontractors.

She learned that under ODSP policy directive 5.4, expenses paid to subcontractors would not be deducted from her gross business income, effectively imputing their earnings to her and jeopardizing her ODSP eligibility.

She alleged this rule and the denial of an Employment Start-Up Benefit (ESUB) discriminated against her based on disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the ESUB claim but found the subcontracting rules discriminatory, as they failed to account for the different capacities of persons with disabilities to engage in self-employment and were not justified by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease applying the rules, pay the applicant's start-up costs, and review its self-employment directives.

The applicant, a lacrosse coach, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and creed after being suspended by the Ontario Lacrosse Association for allowing an unregistered player to try out.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking his suspension or the alleged procedural unfairness to his race, ancestry, or creed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former Registered Practical Nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the timely allegations, which primarily involved routine workplace management and discipline, lacked any reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the events to a protected ground.

The Tribunal further held that the untimely allegations were barred by the one-year limitation period, as the applicant's explanations for the delay—internal complaints and fear of reprisal—did not constitute good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.