HRTO 2017

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's manager made discriminatory comments based on her Indigenous heritage and that her race was a factor in her termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors in law, incorrectly applied the pre-judgment interest rate, and erred in its credibility findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case, but corrected a transcription error regarding the pre-judgment interest rate.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), alleging discrimination based on disability and age after the OLRB dismissed his duty of fair representation application and denied his request for reconsideration.

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

The Tribunal found that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors based on their decision-making duties.

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

The applicant requested that his human rights application hearing proceed by teleconference as an accommodation for his and his witness's disabilities.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to provide medical documentation supporting the need for accommodation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that a teleconference would be inappropriate because the parties' differing versions of events require an in-person assessment of witness credibility.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a housing cooperative and individuals, alleging discrimination in housing based on race, creed, marital status, and reprisal.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal considered requests to add and remove various personal respondents and to amend the applications.

The Tribunal declined to add the Board of Directors or its individual members, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal added the Coopérative Coordinator as a personal respondent to one application due to allegations of harassment, which attract personal liability.

The Tribunal allowed unopposed amendments to the applications and concluded that the applications had a reasonable prospect of success, directing them to a full hearing on the merits.

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

She subsequently brought a request for an order during proceedings to add two corporate entities as organizational respondents and to amend her requested remedies.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and granted the request to add the respondents, noting that the proposed respondents could be vicariously liable for the acts of the individual respondents.

The unopposed request to amend the remedies was also granted.

The individual respondent, having failed to respond to the application for over two years and having been noted in default, requested to participate in the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's ignorance of the process was not a reasonable excuse for his failure to participate despite repeated warnings.

However, because the applicant sought to amend her application to increase the requested remedy, the Tribunal permitted the respondent to file written submissions limited to addressing the amendment request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police discriminated against her on the basis of disability, creed, family status, and marital status during various interactions between 2010 and 2016.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to incidents in 2010 were out of time and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to any evidence that her disability, creed, family status, or marital status was a factor in how the police treated her during their investigations, child apprehensions, and subsequent criminal charges.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following a request to reschedule mediation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her availability or propose new dates.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications and directions, including a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada, alleging discrimination because opposing counsel and Tribunal adjudicators in his previous cases were allegedly incompetent in human rights law.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant also requested to add the Tribunal as a respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the Tribunal and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction as it alleged no specific acts of discrimination and constituted an abuse of process as a collateral attack on previous decisions.

The applicant filed a request to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal and to increase the remedy sought.

The respondents did not file any submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegation flowed directly from the applicant pursuing her rights, was raised well in advance of the hearing, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to restrict the admissibility of parol evidence regarding minutes of settlement, arguing the minutes unambiguously settled the current application.

The applicant opposed, arguing the minutes only settled a separate application and that extrinsic evidence is necessary to resolve ambiguity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva to find that evidence of surrounding circumstances and post-settlement conduct may be admissible to interpret the minutes.

A hearing was ordered to determine whether the minutes settled the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, and reprisal in the form of termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of the applicant's concurrent pay equity complaint.

The respondents supported deferral, arguing there was a risk of conflicting findings regarding the termination, which was also raised in the pay equity complaint.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the issues and remedies were distinct.

The Tribunal found that while some claims were distinct, the termination issue was raised in both proceedings, creating a risk of inconsistent findings.

As the pay equity investigation was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the pay equity matter.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the allegations within the one-year limitation period had no reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's severe depression did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as he was represented by counsel in related matters and could have sought advice.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not describe discrimination based on a pardoned conviction or provincial offence.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID despite a reminder.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an ongoing proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding disability benefits.

Although the respondent consented to the reactivation, the Tribunal denied the request because the parallel court matter had not yet concluded, as required by the Tribunal's rules for deferred applications.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to contracts because of race, sex, gender identity, and reprisal, claiming that an employee of a third-party service provider made sexual advances toward him and that he was subsequently removed from an employment program.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims of discrimination based on race, sex, gender identity, and reprisal as speculative.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to continue regarding the allegation that the respondent failed to properly address the complaint of sexual advances, finding a reasonable prospect that the respondent had a duty to investigate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate as it was unopposed.

However, noting that the ESA proceeding may have appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application after his union withdrew related grievances.

The respondents opposed, requesting the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts, or alternatively, that it remain deferred.

The Tribunal found that s. 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege Code violations or seek remedies for discrimination.

However, given the significant factual overlap regarding the applicant's performance evaluations and termination, the Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed in light of the respondent's response, but the applicant failed to reply.

After a subsequent warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought requests for the production of documents and for anonymization, a publication ban, and a sealing order.

The Tribunal granted the production request in part, ordering the respondent to produce one arguably relevant email regarding a vacation policy.

The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization and publication bans, finding that the applicant's depression and anxiety did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The Tribunal also issued directions limiting the applicant's voluminous communications with the Tribunal.