HRTO 2017

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add three organizational respondents to her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondents did not oppose the request and provided their correct legal names.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and amended the style of cause to include the new organizational respondents.

The respondent requested to remove two individual respondents (the applicant's immediate supervisor and a Disability Management Consultant) from an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment, the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions, and there was no compelling juridical reason to keep them as parties.

The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

After an ESA decision was issued, the Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a preliminary hearing.

The respondents then appealed the ESA decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and requested that the Tribunal cancel the preliminary hearing and defer the application again.

The Tribunal found that the underlying issues in both proceedings were essentially the same and that proceeding with a preliminary hearing would be premature while the ESA appeal was ongoing.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the ESA proceeding and cancelled the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a sexual advance by a member of the respondent YMCA.

The application was filed more than two years after the alleged incident.

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

The applicant's only explanation for the delay was ignorance of his legal rights.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of rights does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay where the applicant had reason to inquire about his rights but chose not to.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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 by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant in an age discrimination case brought requests for the production of prescription sales data, employee contact information, and summonses for third parties including the Ontario College of Pharmacists and CBC News.

The applicant also requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and a determination of the respondents' corporate relationships.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding that the requested documents and information were not arguably relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant's employment was terminated due to age, and that a Tribunal Inquiry was unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and two of its staff members for refusing to represent him in a prior Tribunal proceeding.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The adjudicator found no evidence linking the respondents' decision not to represent the applicant to any prohibited grounds under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent school board requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of several union grievances filed on her behalf.

The grievances alleged a failure to accommodate during the back-to-work process, which overlapped with the facts and issues raised in the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process could adequately address the human rights issues and provide the requested remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

At the commencement of the hearing on the merits, after procedural matters and opening statements, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent sought a withdrawal with prejudice, while the applicant sought it without prejudice.

The Tribunal granted permission for the applicant to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file, the respondent may raise objections at that time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging a breach of settlement.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and the adjudicator was biased.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 justifying reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and failed to address all allegations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw the human rights application.

The respondents consented but requested the withdrawal be marked 'with prejudice' to prevent re-litigation.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal with prejudice regarding future applications to the Tribunal on the same issues, noting it has no jurisdiction to make orders regarding other potential proceedings.

The applicant filed an application against a university pre-law society alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association based on age, gender, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The applicant claimed he was denied a position due to his year of study and faced reprisal after his sexual advances toward the club president were rebuffed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute violations of the Human Rights Code, noting that the Code protects against sexual harassment but does not grant a right to make unwanted sexual advances without consequence.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought to amend the application to include additional allegations regarding events from November 2016 to June 2017, and requested an order for the production of documents.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding them timely and a continuation of the original allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming he developed a dry cough due to environmental sensitivities at the respondent's office.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence of a disability and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to continue on the issue of whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on a perceived disability, as the applicant was terminated shortly after raising air quality concerns and working remotely.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide a complete application or updated contact information.

All mail sent by the Tribunal was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it on that basis.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer breached a settlement agreement by disclosing her grievance file, including medical records, to the WSIB.

The settlement had resolved a previous human rights application and related grievances.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement only bound the applicant, and the requirement to seal her personnel file did not preclude the employer from disclosing relevant records to a statutory body like the WSIB.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to address potential breaches of the implied undertaking rule or privacy legislation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $2,500 in general damages and failing to conduct an accessibility review of parking infraction procedures within 12 months.

The Tribunal found a technical breach regarding the timing of the review and the payment, but noted the respondent complied with the substantive terms upon being notified of the application.

As the object of the Code is remedial rather than punitive, the Tribunal made no order for a remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after a federally regulated bank denied his credit card application.

The Tribunal initiated a summary hearing to determine if the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that lending and the granting of credit by a Schedule I bank are core banking activities that fall exclusively within federal jurisdiction under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.