HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application against his school principal alleging discrimination based on race, age, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent requested to add the school board as a respondent, remove the principal as a personal respondent, and dismiss one of the allegations as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the requests, adding the school board because it is vicariously liable for its employees' actions, removing the principal because there was no compelling reason to name him personally, and dismissing the December 2014 incident because it occurred more than a year before the application was filed and did not form a series of incidents with the later events.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by a WSIB claim and a Ministry of Labour complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB claim only addressed traumatic mental stress policy and the Ministry of Labour complaint was not filed by the applicant and dealt with distinct issues.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to include additional allegations and remedies.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response despite being served with the Application, a previous Interim Decision, and a Case Assessment Direction warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the corporate respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and is not entitled to further notice.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant requested to amend the name of the organizational respondent to reflect its status as a sole proprietorship, to add a personal respondent, and to amend the particulars and remedies sought in his human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the organizational respondent was indeed a sole proprietorship, that the proposed personal respondent's conduct was central to the allegations of a poisoned work environment and discriminatory termination, and that the requested amendments to the remedies were typical and appropriate.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was properly served on the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a pregnant taxi driver on light duties, requested accommodation to avoid climbing stairs for a disciplinary meeting.

After receiving a text message from the respondent stating they would 'get back to' her, she did not attend the meeting and was subsequently suspended for insubordination.

Two days later, the respondent reviewed her file and terminated her.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy accommodation request was a factor in her suspension, making it discriminatory.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the termination was a direct result of the discriminatory suspension.

The respondent was ordered to pay $31,880 in damages for lost income, lost EI benefits, and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and its board members were ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's medical documentation policy and her treatment during the grievance process.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which created a risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal also noted it was unclear whether the alleged mistreatment was linked to the applicant's disability.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred because the facts and issues were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance (denial of short-term disability payments) did not overlap with the allegations in the application (failure to accommodate, poisoned work environment, reprisal).

The request to defer was refused and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add particulars, add reprisal as a ground of discrimination, and add the corporate president as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding they only clarified existing allegations without significantly expanding the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal also added the president as a personal respondent because the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of personal liability for harassment under section 5(2) of the Code, for which the corporate respondent would not be vicariously liable.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin when the respondents decided not to hire him after an interview.

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

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, noting that the respondents' owner asked the applicant where he was from during the interview, which could potentially breach section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents' motion to dismiss was denied, and the application was allowed to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant confirmed his availability.

However, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear, noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent service provider more than a year after the incident.

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

The applicant submitted that his learning disability and reliance on the respondent for paperwork assistance caused the delay.

The Tribunal found this explanation unreasonable given the one-year limitation period, concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith, and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of materials relating to the hiring process in advance of a summary hearing, and requesting permission to amend his Application.

The Tribunal denied the production request, noting that summary hearings do not involve the hearing of evidence and the applicant can make submissions about the materials he would seek to have produced at the summary hearing itself.

The request to amend the Application was deferred to be dealt with at the summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discriminatory discipline.

The applicant also filed grievances with his union regarding the same issues, which were referred to arbitration.

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

The Tribunal granted the request, finding considerable overlap between the proceedings and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps for the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights application, arguing that her right to a fair trial was violated when the respondent breached an exclusion order during the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already addressed in the original decision, where the adjudicator had determined the breach was inadvertent and caused no harm.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant claimed Tribunal staff had given him the wrong date for the hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's assertion to be bald and unsupported, noting his history of making false assertions about Tribunal staff.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnic origin, and race.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondents' actions, which occurred within the scope of their employment.

Finding no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents from the application.

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 failed to respond to the NOID despite multiple notices sent by mail, email, and courier.

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