HRTO 2016

The applicant, a medical marijuana user, alleged that the Mayor of Ottawa discriminated against him by publicly asking medical marijuana users not to expose others to second-hand smoke in establishments.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the Mayor's comments to the media constituted a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the comments were not discriminatory.

The Mayor merely appealed to users not to expose others to second-hand smoke, which does not impose a disadvantage or violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his neighbours, who are a police officer and a crown attorney, and by the regional police services board.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the allegations fell within the social area of services and whether they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the property and harassment allegations against the personal respondents as they did not involve the provision of a service.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the police services board and most remaining allegations against the personal respondents for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the alleged conduct to a protected Code ground.

Only the allegation that the respondent police officer improperly ran criminal and immigration checks on the applicant was permitted to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement by failing to deliver a revised human rights policy within 30 days.

The Tribunal found that the respondent inadvertently failed to deliver the policy, constituting a breach.

However, because the applicant eventually received the policy during the proceedings and failed to establish any damages flowing from the breach, the Tribunal declined to order any remedy.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent otolaryngologist discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability and by engaging in reprisal.

The applicant missed a rescheduled appointment and subsequently threatened a human rights complaint, after which the respondent declined to provide medical services, citing a breakdown in the doctor-patient relationship.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had communicated with the applicant through his requested contact method (his family doctor) and that the termination of services was not intended as retaliation but resulted from a genuine breakdown of trust.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability following his termination from employment.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a related union grievance.

After an arbitrator dismissed the grievances and found no discrimination or reprisal, the respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had explicitly addressed the human rights allegations and provided extensive reasons.

Concluding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

Throughout the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly disregarded the Tribunal's directions, filed numerous frivolous requests for orders, and made unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing against opposing counsel, Tribunal staff, and others regarding the filing of materials.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's persistent refusal to accept rulings and her preoccupation with filing issues derailed the proceeding, making it manifestly unfair to the respondents.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process, though the Tribunal declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The corporate respondent had previously obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which the applicant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the appeal.

After granting multiple extensions, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a further extension, finding no valid medical basis.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court appeal, as the allegations significantly related to the applicant's interactions with the landlord.

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

After failing to comply with disclosure obligations and failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be dismissed if she did not communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file and exchange documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

Neither party complied.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that the application might be dismissed as abandoned if he did not file the required materials.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation discriminated against him and his girlfriend based on race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's handling of a noise complaint during the applicant's rental of the party room, which resulted in restrictions on his future use of the room.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond bald assertions to link the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed three human rights applications but failed to file replies, respond to requests for summary hearing, or provide a written update of her mailing address.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to confirm she was still pursuing her applications, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

Her complaint regarding fibromyalgia was previously allowed to proceed to a merits hearing based on letters from her treating physician.

However, the physician became unable to provide evidence, and the applicant could not find a replacement medical professional.

Without medical evidence to satisfy the legal test for special diet complaints, the Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the conclusion of other proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicants to confirm the status of those proceedings and their intentions regarding their applications.

Three of the applicants failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal deemed their applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed the application in part, alleging personal and institutional bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the submissions merely repeated arguments previously made and addressed.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming he was terminated without cause.

Prior to this application, the applicant filed a grievance through his union which was referred to arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance and upheld the termination, finding that the applicant's gender had nothing to do with the termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after his distribution contract was terminated.

The respondent terminated the contract because the applicant failed to obtain a WSIB clearance certificate, as required by a new independent contractor model.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions linking the termination to his ethnic origin.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay a $9,000 settlement installment on time.

The respondent acknowledged the payment was late due to insufficient funds but paid it 13 days after the deadline.

The Tribunal found that while the late payment constituted a breach of the settlement, it was a minor delay.

Because the applicant provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress resulting from the delay, the Tribunal concluded the breach was de minimis and did not warrant an award of compensation.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a civil action against her long-term disability insurer regarding the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.

The civil action involved different parties and distinct legal issues regarding disability eligibility, whereas the human rights application focused on allegations of discrimination by the employer.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA make documents generated during the complaint process inadmissible in another proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to properly name the organizational respondent, add grounds of colour and sex, and add remedies, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy stages.

The applicant requested a second adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled for July 11, 2016, providing a medical note indicating aggravated symptoms that made it difficult to deal with stressful matters.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and placed the application in abeyance for six months.