3 total
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence connecting alleged unfairness to disability.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.
He claimed the employer delayed his medical treatment following a workplace injury and disciplined him discriminatorily, and that the union failed to properly represent him during a grievance process, coercing him into a settlement.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to provide evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.
Human rights application alleging failure to accommodate disability in furnished tenancy dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a tenant in a furnished accommodation, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability.
She claimed the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her back problems and an allergic reaction by refusing to provide an appropriate mattress.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection, finding it had jurisdiction over human rights issues in housing.
On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not make a clear request for accommodation related to a back disability, and the respondent met her procedural duty to accommodate regarding the alleged allergic reaction before the applicant broke her lease.
No remedy awarded for discriminatory job ad where applicant showed no impact and lacked bona fides.
Following a finding of liability that the respondents contravened the Human Rights Code by posting a job advertisement for a server stating 'female only', a hearing was held to determine the appropriate remedy.
The applicant sought $25,000 in monetary compensation and systemic orders.
The Tribunal declined to award monetary compensation, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence of the impact of the advertisement itself and questioning whether he was a bona fide job applicant.
The Tribunal also declined to order systemic remedies, noting the respondents had already implemented human rights policies and training.
