Ryan Conlin

The applicant, a part-time employee who suffered a workplace injury, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the employer reduced her hours of work and subsequently disciplined her.

The employer had initially accommodated the applicant by providing her with more hours in a modified position than another employee with similar restrictions to avoid paying WSIB Loss of Earnings benefits.

The employer later equalized the hours between the two accommodated employees, resulting in a reduction of the applicant's hours.

The Tribunal found that equalizing the hours did not constitute discrimination and that the employer was not required to maintain unnecessary work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that the discipline imposed for attendance policy violations and inappropriate workplace comments was based on legitimate concerns and lacked retaliatory intent.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant could have filed a union grievance to deal with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, clarifying that section 45.1 only applies when another proceeding has actually dealt with the substance of the application, not when it merely could have.

As the relevant grievances had either been withdrawn or were not being pursued, no other proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability against her employer, her union, and three personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the union and the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against the union, as the assignment of hours was a management prerogative and there was no evidence the union participated in the decision.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud test, as the corporate respondents accepted full vicarious liability and were capable of remedying any infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer, her union, and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union and union personal respondents had no reasonable prospect of success, whether the matter should be deferred to the WSIB, and whether the employer personal respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and union personal respondents, finding no factual foundation that the union's failure to file a grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal declined to defer the matter to the WSIB as there were no ongoing proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the employer personal respondents because the corporate respondents accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

A summary hearing was scheduled via teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend despite receiving notice.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a foster parent, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) and Alliance Youth Services (AYS) after her foster care contract was terminated.

The Tribunal found that AYS violated the applicant's rights by considering discriminatory factors—including suspicions about her Christian faith-based youth camp and allegations of racism—in its decision to terminate the contract.

The Tribunal also found CAST liable because its employee's discriminatory suspicions contributed to AYS's termination decision.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications against the personal respondents and found that AYS would have terminated the contract even without the discriminatory factors, precluding a claim for lost income.