11 total
Human rights application dismissed under section 45.1 as the Social Benefits Tribunal already decided the issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and marital status regarding the calculation of her Ontario Works benefits and a resulting overpayment.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's principles on issue estoppel and concurrent jurisdiction, finding that the SBT had the jurisdiction to apply the Code, the parties and issues were the same, and the applicant had the opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal concluded it would be an abuse of process to permit the application to continue and dismissed it.
Interim remedy for transit access denied as it was unrelated to the service dog discrimination allegations.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to allow her service dog on its specialized transit service, TransHelp.
The applicant sought an interim remedy to be provided with TransHelp accessible services as quickly as possible.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested interim remedy was unrelated to the allegations in the Application, which focused on the service dog rather than her subsequent disqualification from the transit service.
Human rights application re-activated following conclusion of related court proceedings; hearing scheduled on issue estoppel.
The applicant sought to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada regarding a Social Benefits Tribunal decision.
The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application as the other proceedings had concluded.
The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or the doctrine of issue estoppel, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.
Wrongful dismissal and human rights claims dismissed; two weeks' notice deemed reasonable for short-term employee.
The plaintiff, a Scheduling Assistant at a long-term care home, was terminated without cause and provided two weeks' pay in lieu of notice after a nine-month probationary period.
She sued for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations, claiming she was discriminated against due to her Newfoundland accent and pregnancy, and sought $750,000 in damages.
The court found the employer had sufficient grounds for termination due to ongoing performance issues but opted to terminate without cause.
The court held that the two weeks' notice was reasonable under the Bardal factors and dismissed the human rights claims due to inconsistent and insufficient evidence.
Reconsideration of dismissed human rights application denied; no reasonable prospect of success established.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a teleconference hearing.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and sex when the respondents denied his request for Special Priority Status for housing.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to attend the hearing was due to his own mistake, not a lack of notice.
Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the denial of priority housing status to any prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to review Social Benefits Tribunal decisions by way of action.
The appellant commenced two actions in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal requiring her to repay $1,314 in benefits received under the Ontario Works Act.
The motion judge struck out the statements of claim on the basis that the Superior Court has no jurisdiction by way of action over decisions of the Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the proper procedure is to appeal the decision on a question of law to the Divisional Court or seek judicial review.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of related Divisional Court appeals.
The applicant alleged discrimination by the Regional Municipality of Peel regarding the calculation of her shelter allowance.
The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the Social Benefits Tribunal had already dealt with the substance of the Application.
The Tribunal noted the applicant had commenced appeals to the Divisional Court regarding the SBT proceedings.
The Tribunal deferred the Application on its own initiative pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.
Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to attend scheduled conference call hearing.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
A conference call hearing was scheduled to address the timeliness of the application.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Police officer and police service found liable for racial discrimination during a shoplifting investigation.
The complainant, a Black woman, was detained by a store security guard for allegedly stealing a bra.
A Peel Regional Police officer was called to investigate.
During the investigation, the officer asked if the complainant spoke English, called her a 'fucking foreigner', threatened to take her to jail, and subjected her to a heightened and prolonged investigation despite weak evidence.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the officer and the police service discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race in the provision of a service.
The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and ordered the police service to develop a specific anti-racial profiling directive and provide comprehensive training to its officers.
Tribunal orders production of police records and qualifies expert on racial profiling in human rights complaint.
In an interim decision during a human rights hearing alleging racial profiling by a police officer, the adjudicator ordered the respondents to produce the officer's employment record, original notebook, and human rights training manuals.
The adjudicator also qualified Professor Norman Scot Wortley as an expert witness on racial profiling in the criminal justice system and police investigations, finding his proposed evidence relevant and necessary to provide context for the tribunal.
Judicial review dismissed; Service Manager reasonably prioritized housing applicants at risk of further abuse.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Service Manager's decision refusing to extend the time to apply for special priority status for rent-geared-to-income housing assistance.
The applicant, a victim of past abuse, missed the deadline due to her immigration status at the time.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Service Manager reasonably exercised his discretion by prioritizing applicants who were at risk of further abuse.
The court noted that deference is owed to polycentric decisions involving the allocation of limited public resources.
