HRTO 2017

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

The respondent requested that allegations prior to June 2014 be dismissed as untimely and sought a summary hearing.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add two allegations of reprisal relating to a forced medical leave and subsequent termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations prior to June 2014, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's amendments to add the reprisal allegations, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal regarding legal fees charged by the condominium corporation to the new owners of her former unit.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it premature because the applicant was not currently being charged the fees and was not adversely affected by them at this time.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by disclosing the financial terms to its staff.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement explicitly applied only to the applicant and imposed no such obligation on the respondent.

As there was no ambiguity in the contract, extrinsic evidence regarding mediation negotiations was inadmissible.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's right to pursue a separate reprisal claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of reprisal.

He claimed the respondent doctor accused him of stealing a medical file, refused him treatment, and made slanderous comments.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction due to delay and the lack of specific acts of discrimination or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints amounted to general allegations of unfairness and a medical services complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, neither of which engaged the Code.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Revera Long Term Care Inc. as a corporate respondent and remove the originally named personal respondent in an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal noted that the individual was acting in the course of her employment and that Revera, as the employer, would be deemed liable for her actions under the Human Rights Code.

As Revera had notice of the application and did not object or claim prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add Revera and remove the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $15,000 and implement public interest remedies agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent did not file a Response but participated in the hearing, acknowledging the breach.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the settlement and ordered the payment of the $15,000 settlement amount, plus $3,000 in general damages for the distress caused by the breach, and directed the implementation of the remaining non-monetary terms.

The applicant, an ordained Priest, filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin following his re-assignment by the respondent Bishop.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was ecclesiastical and subject to the Code of Canon Law.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Hart, the Tribunal found that the essential nature of the dispute concerned the assignment of a priest, which is an ecclesiastical issue.

Because the Code of Canon Law provides an internal review process that meets the requirements of natural justice, the applicant was required to pursue those avenues.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging racial discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all email communications between himself and his supervisor over a six-month period.

The respondent objected, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and that relevant emails had already been provided.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the respondent to produce all emails sent by the applicant to the supervisor during the specified period, along with any responses, as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's allegation that the supervisor failed to respond to his emails.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming that between 2001 and 2005, his high school teachers dissuaded him from pursuing a career in filmmaking.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 12 years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant attributed the delay to technological errors and his disabilities, but provided no medical documentation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after a restaurant served her a meat-based meal instead of a requested vegetarian meal, and allegedly mocked her religious beliefs when she complained.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations identified specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal applied the "plain and obvious" test and concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed.

The respondents Bowland Dental Laboratories Inc. and the Estate of Frank Bowland requested an order to remove Frank Bowland as a respondent to the human rights application.

They argued that Frank Bowland acted solely as an officer and agent of the corporate respondent, and that the corporation could respond to and remedy any alleged Code breaches.

The applicant and the co-respondent Solaris opposed the request, arguing that Frank Bowland could be personally liable as the directing mind of the corporation, and that there was a risk the inactive corporate respondent could not fulfill a monetary remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the individual respondent could be held personally liable and that his removal could prejudice the applicant and co-respondent.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to add her former employer, Your Fit MindBody Inc., as an organizational respondent and to amend her application to seek additional remedies.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and the factors for amending an application.

Finding that the proposed respondent could be held liable, that effective remedial orders required its inclusion, and that there was no prejudice given the personal respondent's ownership of the corporation, the Tribunal granted both requests.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had filed a civil claim seeking a remedy for an alleged Code breach.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil counterclaim for intrusion upon seclusion and constructive dismissal did not claim a remedy for a Code breach.

The request to dismiss was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the civil claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and citizenship.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to file pre-hearing materials, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

While the respondent complied, the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal despite receiving notice.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on sex (pregnancy) after being laid off.

Prior to this, she had filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, raising essentially the same allegations, which an Employment Standards Officer investigated and dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the Ministry of Labour proceeding and dismissed the application to prevent re-litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment.

The respondent hospital requested dismissal of allegations from 2015 due to delay, while the applicant requested to add the alleged harasser as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal found the 2015 incidents formed a series with later allegations and dismissed the hospital's request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the Code's vicarious liability provisions do not apply to harassment, making her inclusion necessary for a complete remedy.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled but no Confirmation of Settlement or Request to Withdraw was filed.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction to file the required forms or confirm her intention to proceed by the deadline, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues had already been appropriately dealt with at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to overlapping legal and factual issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the applicant's claims regarding accommodation of her disability and her request to use a scooter in the rental unit were not addressed by the LTB.

The applications were directed to proceed to a hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared the matter may be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.