HRTO 2017

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified by his fear of reprisal and stress related to family illness.

The Tribunal found that fear of reprisal does not constitute good faith for delay, and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence that his stress or family circumstances prevented him from pursuing his rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a high school student, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when she interviewed for a co-op placement at the respondent's auto body shop.

During the interview, the owner asked if she wanted to get her hands dirty and offered her only clerical and cleaning work, despite her interest in the trades.

The Tribunal found the owner's comments and actions were discriminatory and that the applicant was denied a placement in the body shop because of her sex.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the owner was ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

He claimed the respondent church tolerated anti-Semitic comments by another patron at its drop-in program, banned him for one month after a physical altercation with that patron, and failed to properly address his subsequent complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was unaware of any prior anti-Semitic comments, acted reasonably when informed, and banned the applicant solely because of his involvement in a physical altercation.

There was no evidence that the respondent's actions or its handling of the complaint were connected to the applicant's Jewish identity.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the completion of another proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a Deferred Application-Advice of Status letter directing the applicant to advise on the status of the other proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested to amend her application to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, correct the corporate respondent's name, and amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and Persaud and found it fair and just to add the owner as a personal respondent, noting that his conduct was the central issue in the case and he had constructive notice of the application.

The requests to correct the corporate name and amend the remedies were granted on consent.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application against the Windsor Police Services Board to include new allegations of gender discrimination and reprisal regarding a fall 2016 promotional process.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegations were closely related to the existing ones and that the reprisal claims required a hearing of evidence to determine intent.

The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination based on disability against a Justice of the Peace, an Assistant Crown Attorney, the Attorney General, and an MPP, all relating to his complaints against the WSIB.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding it plain and obvious they fell outside its jurisdiction due to judicial immunity, the lack of a service relationship with opposing counsel, and the failure to allege acts of discrimination linked to disability regarding the politicians' failure to respond to his letters.

The applicant in two human rights applications filed several Requests for Order During Proceeding, seeking anonymization, a publication ban, and an order requiring the respondents to remove internet postings about her.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the open court principle.

The Tribunal also found no evidence linking the respondents to the internet postings and noted it lacked authority to order the amendment of a police occurrence report.

The requests were dismissed, with other procedural issues deferred to a summary hearing.

The respondent Children's Aid Society of Ottawa filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related child protection proceedings.

The applicant supported reactivation, while the respondent Children and Family Services for York Region opposed it.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application or carve out the moving party while the court proceedings, which deal with the same facts and raise the potential for inconsistent results, remain ongoing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin.

The applicant also filed a union grievance and a Ministry of Labour claim under the Employment Standards Act based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's opposition due to a lack of confidence in his union, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the concurrent proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and promote adjudicative economy.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance did not capture all issues and could be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the grievance were largely identical to those in the application and deferred the application to avoid concurrent legal proceedings and duplicative use of resources.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to file its hearing documents and witness statements, citing vacation schedules and the health issues of a key witness.

The applicant opposed the requests.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and denied the extension of time, noting the respondent had already missed multiple deadlines.

The respondent was directed to comply with disclosure obligations by a specified date.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for seeking accommodation and raising health concerns, and that he was harassed and not accommodated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) and the WSIB.

The Tribunal found that the ESO's decision, which concluded the applicant was guilty of wilful misconduct and neglect of duty, appropriately dealt with the termination and reprisal allegations.

Those aspects of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal found the accommodation issues prior to termination were not fully addressed and ordered a summary hearing to determine if they had a reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent filed a Response asserting that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release and sought dismissal.

The applicant failed to file a Reply despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and seeking monetary relief.

The respondent corporation subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that human rights proceedings seeking monetary remedies are claims provable in bankruptcy and are therefore subject to the statutory stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed against the respondent, and the applicant was directed to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend or provide an explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's history of filing and abandoning multiple applications and dismissed the current application as abandoned, warning that future similar conduct could result in the applicant being declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability and reprisal.

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 within the directed timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an audit of the respondent to determine if it accessed his personal health information, and requesting that Loblaws Inc. be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request for an audit, noting it is akin to a Tribunal-ordered inquiry which is not a routine event and not a substitute for the usual production process.

The request to add Loblaws Inc. was also denied as the applicant provided no reasons in support.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the required timeframe.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a hairdresser, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She alleged that she was subjected to vulgar name-calling and differential treatment by the respondents because she was in a common-law relationship rather than legally married.

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

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's facts as true, she could establish a link between the respondents' actions and her marital status.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.