Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

After the stay was lifted, the Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should continue to be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, and noted the grievance process was proceeding in an expedited fashion.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Ciptapati Winhar Inc. as an organizational respondent.

The applicant alleged that the actions of an individual respondent, who is a director of the corporation, may be deemed to be the actions of the corporation under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

As no respondents objected and the corporation is a proper party if the allegations are true, the Tribunal granted the request and added the corporation as a respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex, including sexual harassment.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's factual allegations as true, there was no evidence connecting the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground under the Code.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondents contravened the terms of a Minutes of Settlement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the $30,000 settlement funds and failing to complete required human rights training.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $30,000 settlement amount immediately, along with $5,000 in general damages for the financial and emotional harm caused by the breach, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability 27.5 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that her mental health disability, ignorance of her rights, and reliance on her union caused the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was able to pursue other legal matters during the delay period, had reason to inquire about her rights, and could not rely on concurrent union proceedings to justify the delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights applications to increase the monetary compensation sought from $150 to $25,000.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that amendments to remedies are regularly permitted up to the date of the hearing.

The respondent requested an order deferring mediation in this human rights application until the Tribunal rendered a decision in a summary hearing for a separate but related application.

Both applications concerned whether the requirement that service dogs be trained and certified by an accredited facility to receive the Guide Dog Benefit is discriminatory.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the outcome of the related summary hearing would be highly relevant to the mediation and that deferral would not cause significant delay.

The applicant, who had a disability due to a collapsed lung, was terminated after admitting to drinking a beer on his lunch break.

Two co-workers without disabilities who also drank were only given warnings.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and race.

The Tribunal found that the employer's skepticism regarding the applicant's recent request for disability accommodation contributed to the decision to terminate him rather than issue a warning.

The race discrimination claim was dismissed.

The Tribunal awarded $20,350 for lost wages, $5,000 for injury to dignity, and ordered human rights training for management.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents breached a settlement by failing to pay funds within the agreed time frame.

The respondent acknowledged the error and confirmed payment had been made.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to contracts and employment because of creed, reprisal, and threat of reprisal, claiming she was prevented from participating in a Consultation Committee meeting after her employment with the respondent First Nation was terminated.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the matter fell within its jurisdiction.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the nature, operations, and habitual activities of the Committee and the First Nation relate to First Nations governance, which falls squarely within exclusive federal jurisdiction over 'Indians and lands reserved for the Indians'.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and lack of French language services by Crown Attorneys.

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

The applicant joined the teleconference but refused to cooperate, interrupted the adjudicator, and hung up.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant abandoned it by failing to cooperate in the Tribunal's processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and disability, nearly two years after her employment was terminated.

She had previously filed an application regarding the same termination, which was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the current application should be dismissed for delay or as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she did not provide medical evidence that her eye surgery prevented her from filing in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the application to be an abuse of process because it re-raised issues that had already been addressed and dismissed in the first application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the Board of Directors of a health services organization by the respondent First Nation.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the functional test for federal undertakings and found that the First Nation's decision to appoint and remove the applicant from the board fell within its governance function over its members.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a real estate broker, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The applicant's former home, which contained a licensed medical marijuana garden, was sold by the bank under a writ of possession.

The bank's legal counsel instructed the respondent real estate broker to list the property as a 'grow op'.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent was providing a service to the bank, not the applicant, and therefore no service relationship existed under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants, a married couple, were long-term employees of the respondent.

The wife suffered a workplace fall and experienced mental health issues, leading to a WSIB claim and unusual workplace behaviour.

The respondent laid off both applicants earlier than planned and subsequently failed to recall them after they alleged human rights violations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the wife's mental disability and that her disability and WSIB claim were factors in her early lay-off.

The Tribunal also found that the husband was laid off due to his marital status.

Furthermore, the respondent's refusal to recall the applicants constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded damages for lost wages and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and various other claims against the Toronto Police Service.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, noting the applicant's history of vexatious litigation in multiple forums.

The applicant filed an application alleging violations of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability against a bank and its mortgage subsidiary.

The allegations related to the bank's failure to cancel credit card insurance, its refusal to change the frequency of mortgage payments, and reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the core issues involved banking and lending, which fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal noted that even if the credit insurance issue fell under provincial jurisdiction, it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the bank's actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal, and subsequently requested an interim remedy to access release time, improve his work environment, and restrict communications with the personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the significant onus required for an interim remedy, as the requested orders were not necessary to ensure the Tribunal could award a complete and effective remedy at the end of a hearing should a Code violation be found.

The applicant failed to file hearing documents and witness statements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to advise whether he intended to participate in the scheduled hearing.

The applicant did not respond to any of the directions.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.