HRTO 2016

The applicant, a sales representative, alleged discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, claiming a senior representative referred to her as 'that Chinese girl' and that she received inadequate supplies and support.

Following the applicant's evidence at a summary hearing, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the only evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to the applicant's ethnic origin was hearsay, to which it attached no weight.

Concluding the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment following his termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement in a Small Claims Court action regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had explicitly raised human rights issues in the civil action and that the settlement released the respondent from all claims related to the facts and issues raised in that action.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in employment requested the production of various documents from the personal and corporate respondents prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the production of Records of Employment, text messages, photographs, and an investigation report, with the identifying information of a third-party complainant redacted to balance probative value and prejudicial effect.

Requests for broad internal correspondence, settlement agreements, and certain corporate policies were denied for failing to establish arguable relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application relating to the termination of his employment in 2010, more than five years after the events and nearly a year after a related arbitration award.

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

The applicant argued that a mental health disability prevented him from filing earlier, but provided no medical evidence and had participated in an 18-day grievance arbitration during the delay period.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was out of time and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding a job transfer and the denial of a mentorship opportunity.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already decided by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found the GSB had appropriately dealt with the transfer allegation and dismissed that part of the application.

The Tribunal also dismissed the mentorship allegation, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's age.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment by the personal respondent, the President and CEO of her former employer.

The respondents failed to participate in the Tribunal's process and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including unwelcome physical touching and inappropriate comments, which constituted sexual harassment.

The organizational respondent was held jointly and severally liable as the personal respondent was its directing mind.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the organizational respondent to provide human rights training and post Code cards.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by their condominium corporation.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in prior Superior Court proceedings under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that the factual underpinnings of both proceedings were identical and the Court's factual findings precluded a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under s. 45.1 and alternatively as an abuse of process, as the applicants impermissibly split their case by failing to raise the Code allegations in the prior court proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the City of Windsor and the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the deduction of her Ukrainian disability pension from her Ontario Works benefits and alleged rude treatment by City staff.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application regarding the pension deduction under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the Social Benefits Tribunal had already appropriately dealt with the substance of that issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations of bad treatment and reprisal as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the alleged treatment and any protected ground.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding overtime opportunities.

After a lengthy procedural history involving the applicant's failure to provide particulars and disregard for Tribunal orders, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled merits hearing, sending a fax the morning of the hearing claiming bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and as an abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to request time off work indicated he never intended to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the Financial Services Commission of Ontario closed her complaint regarding an insurance company's denial of accident benefits without an investigation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to connect the alleged unfairness to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

Finding no facts linking the respondent's actions to a breach of the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application as being plainly and obviously outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a work-related injury rather than performance issues.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) was dealing with the same substance.

The Tribunal found that the primary issue at the WSIB—whether the termination was related to the injury or performance—was the same as the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a final decision from the WSIB.

The parties submitted a consent request to adjourn a scheduled hearing because one of the respondent's witnesses was unavailable.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, consent adjournments are not granted.

The Tribunal found that the unavailability of one witness was not exceptional, as the applicant bore the onus to proceed first and other witnesses could testify.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for filing hearing documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Court of Appeal for Ontario, alleging discrimination based on creed and family status regarding a decision upholding his criminal conviction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the actions of the Court of Appeal in executing its decision-making duties are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity and fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an order to defer consideration of her human rights application pending the outcome of her application for judicial review of an earlier Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no risk of inconsistent decisions since the Tribunal had already ruled on the issues under judicial review, and noting that administrative proceedings should not be delayed by judicial review except in exceptional circumstances.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a term of their minutes of settlement by failing to provide a letter of reference, instead providing an employment verification letter that omitted agreed-upon language.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's unilateral alteration of the letter's title, language, and content constituted a fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a redrafted letter complying with the settlement terms and awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the resulting harm and frustration in her job search.

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

The organizational respondent requested dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant failed to provide an address for the individual respondent and failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a civil proceeding in Small Claims Court.

The civil proceeding was dismissed on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and place of origin after being denied a Chemical Engineer position.

The successful candidate for the position filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the Tribunal's decision could directly affect his employment status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to grant intervenor status given the potential effect of the proceeding on the incumbent employee.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple union grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievances.

To avoid duplication of proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process.