Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically failure to accommodate and termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the grievance was withdrawn prior to any decision or settlement, there was no other proceeding that dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to consider his disability-related needs when investigating alleged workplace misconduct.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the clinical notes and records of the applicant's family physician.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the medical records arguably relevant to the central issue of the applicant's medical condition at the material times.

The Tribunal granted the request but limited the production to the one-year period prior to the applicant's termination.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to the Application of Mr. Burmaster.

The applicant consented to the request, provided he could refer to the initial draft at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the applicants and noting that the hearing was still months away.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to disclose documents and provide witness statements by the specified deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that the application could be dismissed if the materials were not filed, the applicant still failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of mental health disability requested production of the applicant's medical records from 2008 forward.

The applicant opposed the production of certain private counselling notes and records predating the relevant period.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical information relevant to what the respondent knew in 2010 and from December 2014 to his termination, but denied the request for private counselling notes from Addiction Services Thames Valley and Dr. Bush, finding the prejudice to the applicant outweighed their relevance.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of video surveillance footage of an incident.

The respondent opposed the request, stating that the footage was no longer available as its system memory only went back to May 5, 2017.

The Tribunal found that while the footage would be arguably relevant, it could not order the production of something that does not exist.

The request was denied, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, a corporate respondent, and its president, the personal respondent, alleging failure to accommodate and workplace harassment.

The corporate respondent entered bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings against it.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the application should also be stayed against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found that because the allegations primarily concerned the corporate respondent's liability for accommodation and the actions of its employees, the corporate respondent would be liable for any monetary remedy.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the application be stayed against the personal respondent as well.

In an ongoing human rights hearing, the Tribunal noted that self-represented intervenors were facing barriers in presenting evidence.

To ensure a fair and impartial process, the Tribunal exercised its power under Rule 1.7 of its Rules of Procedure to order the former President of the Mississauga Girls Hockey League to appear as a witness, as she possessed relevant evidence that could assist the Tribunal.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application alleging workplace reprisal, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance process.

The grievance process concluded in April 2016, but the applicant did not request re-activation until April 2017, well beyond the 60-day deadline under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal denied the request and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good explanation for his failure to inquire about the status of his grievance and that the lengthy delay would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

Two of the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to produce arguably relevant documents and file hearing materials.

As a result of their complete failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and directions, the Tribunal ordered that these respondents may not lead evidence, call witnesses, or make submissions on issues not addressed in their Response, unless they can satisfy the Tribunal that doing so would cause no substantial prejudice or delay.

The applicant, who uses a service dog for her disability, alleged that her neighbour discriminated against her based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

The dispute centered around signs the applicant posted on her condominium door indicating the presence of a service dog, which the respondent repeatedly complained about to property management.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's persistent and demeaning complaints regarding the service dog signs created a poisoned environment, amounting to discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation.

The allegations regarding receipt of public assistance were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded $200 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on gender identity and marital status, claiming a co-worker spread gossip and shared personal information with the applicant's estranged husband.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations related to interpersonal conflict and had no connection to the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations that the co-worker repeatedly called the applicant a 'crazy bitch' or 'psycho bitch', as these could engage the grounds of disability or perceived disability and sex.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

After the Tribunal issued multiple directions requesting the status of the other proceeding and the applicant failed to comply or respond to the respondent's request to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and family status against multiple police services, a children's aid society, and the Family Responsibility Office.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the three timely allegations—concerning police responses to child access disputes, child support enforcement policies, and a children's aid society's decision not to investigate a report—had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence of adverse treatment linked to a protected ground.

The Tribunal further dismissed the remaining untimely allegations, some dating back nine years, finding the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was banned from a grocery store because he is Jewish.

The respondents contended he was asked to leave for one day after opening a food package with a knife in the store.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and if it was filed in time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to link the respondents' actions to the applicant's religion, making the claim entirely speculative.

Furthermore, the application was filed approximately 30 months after the incident, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence directing him to advise of his intentions.

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

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant provided evidence that it had fulfilled all its obligations under the settlement, including making required payments and providing an employment letter.

Despite this, the respondent continued to send emails and letters demanding further payments and a new employment letter, in violation of the release clause.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the terms of the settlement and issued a declaration to that effect, as requested by the applicant.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's submissions, which included medical evidence, legal memoranda, and emails, but found they amounted to re-argument of her case.

The Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor was the original decision in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicants filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $7,000 in agreed-upon damages.

The respondent did not participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement and ordered him to pay the $7,000 owed, plus an additional $2,500 to each applicant as compensation for the emotional harm and frustration caused by the breach.

The applicant, an employee with Asperger's syndrome, alleged discrimination by his employer and union regarding requests for medical information and the handling of his return to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding medical information requests, finding them reasonable.

However, the Tribunal found the employer constructively discriminated against the applicant during a return-to-work meeting and upon his return by failing to accommodate his specific communication and sensory needs, including issuing a confusing backdated letter of expectation and denying him a break when he became distressed.

The union was found not liable.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.