HRTO 2017

The respondents requested the early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim.

The Employment Standards Officer had awarded the applicant termination and severance pay, finding that his lateness was a consequence of his learning disability and not wilful misconduct.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the ESA proceeding did not address the broader human rights issues of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's disability or terminated him on discriminatory grounds.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding C&W Services as a respondent and adding services and contracts as a social area.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found it appropriate to add C&W Services, as the conduct of its employee was central to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the social area of goods, services and facilities, but denied the request to add contracts as there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and C&W Services.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and wrongful dismissal by the respondent school board.

The applicant also filed a concurrent grievance alleging termination without just cause.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the grievance would likely deal with the same allegations of discriminatory treatment and that allowing both to proceed simultaneously could lead to inconsistent findings.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts in the OLRB proceeding and the human rights application, specifically regarding the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding, including any reconsideration or judicial review.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant, an employee with Asperger's syndrome, alleged discrimination by his employer and union regarding requests for medical information and the handling of his return to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding medical information requests, finding them reasonable.

However, the Tribunal found the employer constructively discriminated against the applicant during a return-to-work meeting and upon his return by failing to accommodate his specific communication and sensory needs, including issuing a confusing backdated letter of expectation and denying him a break when he became distressed.

The union was found not liable.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicants filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $7,000 in agreed-upon damages.

The respondent did not participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement and ordered him to pay the $7,000 owed, plus an additional $2,500 to each applicant as compensation for the emotional harm and frustration caused by the breach.

The applicant filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking production of his full human resources file, accommodations for the hearing, and permission to file additional medical evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the entire human resources file, permitted the applicant to file additional medical evidence, and directed the applicant to provide his pre-hearing disclosure, including witness statements and documents, by a specified deadline.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents.

While the first application was under reserve following a hearing, the parties settled the second application and signed Minutes of Settlement containing a broad release.

The respondents argued the release settled both applications, while the applicant argued it only applied to the second.

The Tribunal found the release language was unambiguous and, applying principles of contract interpretation, concluded that the broad 'any and all applications' language covered the first application, which was outstanding at the time the settlement was signed.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his brother, a grocery clerk with a cognitive disability and physical restrictions due to a back injury.

The applicant alleged the respondent employer failed to accommodate the claimant's physical restrictions by requiring him to lift heavy items and kneel.

The Tribunal found that while the employer made good faith efforts to accommodate the claimant, it breached its procedural duty by failing to provide the claimant's specific medical restrictions to his direct supervisor.

This led to a substantive failure to accommodate, as the claimant continued to perform tasks outside his restrictions.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $500 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to clearly identify and communicate the claimant's restrictions to ensure future compliance.

The applicant, a building superintendent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and contracts after his employment was terminated for frustration of contract following a workplace assault.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing, arguing the housing issues were already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 2014 contract renewal but allowed the remaining claims to proceed, finding that the LTB did not have jurisdiction to determine if the employment termination was discriminatory and that the frustration of contract issue required a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay compensation ordered in a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because there was no settlement between the parties, only a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal noted it lacks independent power to enforce its decisions and directed the applicant to file a certified copy of the decision with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement under section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant in a human rights complaint sought to amend her Application to increase the financial compensation claimed from $25,000 to $323,000.

The respondent objected, arguing the amount was excessive.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting that there was no prejudice to the respondent, who would have the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate remedy at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following the termination of her employment.

The respondents argued the application was out of time as the Tribunal's record showed it was filed more than one year after the termination.

The applicant provided evidence that she had originally submitted the application within the one-year period but the Tribunal failed to process it.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in accordance with section 34 of the Human Rights Code and directed the processing to continue.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant's requests for an adjournment, change of venue, and production of documents were denied.

On the morning of the hearing, the applicant sent an email indicating he might not attend due to an unparticularized medical appointment and filed a second request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the applicant's failure to attend, dismissed the application as abandoned, and denied the second request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race.

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

A grievance arbitrator subsequently dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement or the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then sought to reactivate his application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had concurrent jurisdiction, dealt with the same issues, and appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant, a tenant with a scent sensitivity disability, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her by using scented cleaning products.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found the LTB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations up to and including a specific garbage chute incident, and dismissed those parts of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include new allegations of discrimination that occurred after the LTB hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the full name and contact information of a security guard employed by a third party, GardaWorld, whom he wished to call as a witness.

GardaWorld did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered GardaWorld to produce the requested information, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in the case.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal was advised that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm the intention to proceed to a hearing by a specified date, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination requested an order to close the hearing proceedings and proceed with written closing submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that to ensure a fair hearing without prejudice to the applicant, the respondent should be allowed to recall a witness to provide critical evidence regarding interactions with the applicant.

The hearing was ordered to continue for one additional day.