HRTO 2016

The applicant, a tenant with a mental health disability, alleged that his landlord discriminated against him by repeatedly filing deficient applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The applicant claimed the landlord knew the LTB proceedings negatively affected his mental health and had a duty to accommodate him by not filing the applications.

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

The Tribunal noted that the requirement to pay rent and the landlord's right to enforce it at the LTB are not discriminatory, and the duty to accommodate does not require a landlord to refrain from pursuing legal remedies for rent arrears.

The applicant, a Transit Operator, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his short-term disability benefits and return to work plan.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the insurer, Manulife, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting its claims management to the applicant's disability, and the employer bears the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also dismissed several allegations against the employer for delay, finding they did not form a series of incidents with timely allegations and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the delay.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application in part and resolved outstanding document production requests.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of arguably relevant documents from the applicant.

The applicant failed to meaningfully respond to the request, claiming she had no arguably relevant documents, despite her application referencing emails, notes, and medical records related to her mental health.

The Tribunal found the requested documents to be arguably relevant and ordered the applicant to produce them within 7 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by a Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same facts and issues were the subject of an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings overlapped and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant did not provide the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to add the ground of age, allegations of reprisal, and additional facts and remedies based on incidents occurring after the initial filing.

The respondent did not object to the amendment but disputed the substantive allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent given the hearing was months away and the new allegations were linked to the original ones.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file hearing materials by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a former house cleaner, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, family status, and association, as well as reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to reprisal and family status, finding no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was denied a promotion to captain status because of her age to proceed to a full hearing, as she could potentially establish a prima facie case.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled in-person hearing.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications against a restaurant, a children's aid society, and a police services board, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations were devoid of particulars, lacked a link to a prohibited ground under the Code, and were based on general feelings of unfairness rather than evidence.

The applications were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include remedies for maintaining seniority and compensation for wage loss.

The respondent opposed the amendment on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the respondent's request for medical records and the intervenor's request to exclude certain recordings from evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and creed regarding his termination and pension plan provisions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the release, had legal advice, and was not under duress or subject to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being screened out of two job competitions at the City of Toronto.

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

The Tribunal removed two individual respondents as parties, finding their presence unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The respondents' request for a summary hearing was refused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the redacted applications and CVs of candidates who were screened into the competitions, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that he was equally or better qualified.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent subsequently underwent restructuring under the CCAA, resulting in a court-approved plan of compromise.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intends to seek leave to file a proof of claim against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to confirm whether it forwarded the application to the personal respondent and to provide his last known personal address.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability by the respondent store during a product return.

The applicant claimed she was not accommodated for her disability, was questioned inappropriately due to her accent, and was subjected to a hostile environment when another customer yelled at her.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the store accommodated her disability by allowing her to sit, the return process was standard and completed quickly, and the employees did not subject her to adverse treatment or encourage the other customer's behavior.

The applicant's representative requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because he was no longer able to represent the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the unavailability of counsel or the need to retain new counsel does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, especially given the age of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, family status, and marital status after her application to the Second Career fund was denied.

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 and that she could not point to any evidence linking the denial of funding or the respondents' conduct to a protected Code ground.

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

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a union grievance process that was ultimately withdrawn.

The respondents opposed the re-activation due to the passage of time and requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding no authority to deny it despite concerns about the ten-year delay.

The Tribunal also denied the request to dismiss the application as untimely, noting that the one-year filing deadline fell on a Saturday, and the application was properly filed on the following Monday.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he lacked the cognitive capacity to understand the release when he signed it.

The Tribunal found no medical or other evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity, noting he understood he had to sign to receive severance.

The Tribunal held the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested to amend their human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent school board made a report to the Children's Aid Society in retaliation for the application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and barred by the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it more efficient to deal with the issue in the current proceeding and that the CFSA does not automatically bar such allegations.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to explain what evidence would be available to prove the report was made maliciously or without reasonable grounds, given the high threshold established by the CFSA.