HRTO 2016

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA claim was another proceeding, it focused on unpaid wages and termination, and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the accommodation allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the individually named respondent, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable and capable of remedying any alleged Code infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent supported deferring the application, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings capable of addressing human rights issues, ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding employment discrimination based on disability (Type 2 Diabetes) brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's medical records and MTO files.

The applicant opposed, arguing his medical condition was not relevant as the respondent had not confirmed his status in the hiring process.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documents arguably relevant to assessing whether the respondent breached its obligations under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the police regarding an incident in November 2013.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than a year after the incident.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay to establish good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal.

The respondents requested that certain documents be struck from the first application, while the applicant requested that the applications be consolidated and deferred pending the conclusion of related grievance arbitrations.

The Tribunal deferred the second application pending the grievance arbitrations but declined to consolidate the applications at this time.

The respondents' request to strike documents was deferred to the member presiding at the upcoming preliminary hearing.

The respondent requested an order prohibiting the union from intervening in the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's intervention, noting that a union generally has an interest in an application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The request to prohibit intervention was dismissed, with the scope of intervention left to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed a proof of claim under the Re-Amended Plan of Compromise and Arrangement in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the proof of claim, with instructions for the applicant to request reactivation within 60 days of the claim's determination if she wishes to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice requesting an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to either letter.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested dismissal on preliminary grounds, including delay, abuse of process due to prior Minutes of Settlement, and no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time.

It held that permitting the applicant to re-litigate the incident covered by the Minutes of Settlement would be an abuse of process, rejecting her argument of economic duress.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination requested to add the University of Toronto and Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc. as respondents.

Three personal respondents requested to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding no allegations of discrimination against them.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the corporate respondents, finding no basis upon which they could be found to have violated the applicant's rights under the Code.

The applicant, who has post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and germaphobia, alleged discrimination in services by the respondent restaurant.

Previously accommodated by the restaurant, the applicant experienced a refusal of accommodation following a change in ownership.

On December 12, 2013, the applicant was ignored, refused accommodation, and told by the manager that he was 'high maintenance' and that the manager had no obligation to accommodate him.

The manager also made a highly discriminatory comment and ordered the applicant to leave.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by refusing accommodation and making hurtful comments.

The Tribunal awarded $12,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights applications for being untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator interrupted him, misunderstood his submissions, and made incorrect decisions regarding delay and the merits of his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to introduce new determinative evidence, did not establish a conflict with established jurisprudence, and merely sought to re-argue issues already decided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance proceeding dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to exclude the respondent's expert medical report, arguing its admission would be an abuse of process due to delay and re-litigation.

The respondent filed a cross-request for an order requiring the parties' medical experts to meet with a facilitator to produce a joint report (a 'hot tub').

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, finding no delay, no prior legal determination of the applicant's medical needs, and that the expert evidence was relevant to the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request, concluding that a facilitated meeting would be an inefficient use of resources given the fundamental disagreement between the experts.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on marital status after his driver's licence was suspended for unpaid support payments under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

He argued the legislation was discriminatory because it only applied to separated or divorced individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the legislation distinguishes between those who meet support obligations and those who do not, rather than creating a distinction based on the prohibited ground of marital status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin against an employee of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

The applicant's written submissions alleged the respondent created a fake rule regarding document delivery but failed to connect this to his place of origin.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on place of origin regarding a Case Assessment Direction she issued in another matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, as the allegations related entirely to the respondent's decisions in her adjudicative role, which are protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin by the respondent, who was legal counsel for the Ontario Labour Relations Board in another proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as opposing counsel does not provide a service to an adverse party within the meaning of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After the deadline passed without compliance or communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a student at George Brown College, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin after an unpleasant interaction with another student and a facilitator.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on speculation rather than evidence connecting the incidents to her Caucasian race or Irish heritage.

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