Human rights - Employment — Ontario Employment Law

M. v. Direct Coil Inc.

HRTO Judicial Review: Accommodation & WSIB

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision where the Tribunal had dismissed an application on a preliminary basis. The Divisional Court quashed the dismissal decision, finding the Tribunal unreasonably relied on a WSIB decision that did not address accommodation issues, thereby allowing the human rights application to proceed.

K. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)

K. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal): Leave to Appeal

This was a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision. The applicant, a forest firefighter, alleged discrimination because his employer did not provide vegan meals, arguing ethical veganism is a creed. The parties settled the claim while a preliminary hearing on the definition of creed was pending, but the Tribunal adjudicator, unaware of the settlement, ruled ethical veganism was not a creed. The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review as moot due to the settlement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding the discretionary refusal to hear a moot case did not raise an arguable question of public importance.

S. v. Toronto Transit Commission

Human Rights: Mask Policy & Disability Accommodation

This case involves a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability where the plaintiff claimed a migraine disorder required accommodation from a mandatory mask policy. The court found that no prima facie discrimination was established because the link between the migraine and mask intolerance was not proven, resulting in no duty to accommodate. Additionally, the plaintiff's constructive dismissal claim was dismissed as the refusal to comply with the essential masking term constituted repudiation by the employee, though the court awarded one week of sick leave for a promised coded sick week.

G. v. Unity Health Toronto et al.

HRTO Judicial Review: Procedural Fairness and Jurisdiction

The Divisional Court reviewed an application for judicial review of an HRTO decision that screened out a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court found the HRTO's determination that the allegations lacked a nexus to a Code protected ground was reasonable and that the tribunal's use of a written determination without an oral hearing did not deny procedural fairness.

B. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.

Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Employment Decision

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding employment-related human rights complaints. The Divisional Court reviewed allegations of sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal in the context of the applicant's termination during a probationary period. The Court applied the Vavilov standard of reasonableness to the Tribunal's findings that the employer had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for termination and that the workplace environment allegations were unsubstantiated.

Academy of Learning Career College v. A.

Judicial Review: HRTO Procedural Fairness & Extension of Time

This is a judicial review proceeding concerning a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, focusing on procedural fairness and the extension of time to commence the application. The Divisional Court reviewed an extension of time to file the judicial review application, a stay of enforcement of the HRTO award pending the review, and a motion to quash the application as frivolous or vexatious.

P. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

This is a procedural ruling in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision. The court dismissed a motion to strike affidavit evidence, addressed the production of hearing transcripts, and deferred consideration of costs until the transcript issue is resolved.

P. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Judicial Review: HRTO Evidence Admissibility

This is a judicial review proceeding concerning the admissibility of affidavit evidence and procedural issues regarding transcript production in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario case. The Divisional Court addressed whether the applicant could tender an affidavit to challenge the Tribunal's reliance on oral testimony and managed a motion regarding the production of the Tribunal's audio recording.

H. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.

HRTO Judicial Review: Bias and Fairness Challenges

This is a judicial review application brought by an employee against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the respondent employer. The applicant challenged the HRTO's summary dismissal of their discrimination, harassment, and reprisal claims, alleging procedural unfairness, bias, and unreasonable limitation period findings. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that there was no evidence of bias or a breach of procedural fairness.

J. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HRTO Judicial Review: Refusal of Reconsideration Application

This is a judicial review application concerning the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's refusal to reconsider a decision in a human rights complaint related to employment dismissal. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider was reasonable due to the applicant's nine-month delay, and that the court should not extend the time to review the original decision given the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process.

K. v. The Independent Electricity System Operator et al.

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing a human rights application. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings on jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and limitation periods, regarding whether the application was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

W. v. 1355844 Ontario INC. o/a Korean Grill House

HRTO Reprisal Judicial Review: No Nexus to Code Rights

This is a judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing a reprisal complaint. The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding that the actions were not connected to the exercise of rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, specifically regarding public speech and threats of civil proceedings.

M. v. City Of Toronto Vpd/Tph

Judicial Review of HRTO Abandonment Decision

The Divisional Court reviewed the applicant's judicial review of an HRTO decision to dismiss an application for relief from abandonment. The court found the application to be an abuse of process and devoid of merit because the applicant failed to address the actual HRTO decision and did not advance proper grounds for review.

D. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, et al

HRTO Judicial Review: Procedural Fairness and Reasonableness

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding procedural fairness and reasonableness. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by conflating hearings and failed to provide intelligible reasons, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's decisions and remitting the matter.

B. v. Precise ParkLink Inc.

HRTO Judicial Review: Unreasonable Dismissal of Application

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed an application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess the substance of related proceedings and lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility under Vavilov. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. The Crown in Right of Ontario

Charter Challenge: Freedom of Association in Public Sector

This is a merits decision regarding a Charter challenge to the government's cancellation of a Task Force via Order in Council. The court applied the test from Health Services and Mounted Police to determine if there was substantial interference with freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. The application was dismissed as the government was not responsible for the inability to exercise associational rights, and the Task Force Letter of Understanding did not bind the Government.

Brandt Tractor Ltd. v M.M.

HRTO Judicial Review: Maternity Discrimination Upheld

The Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding discrimination based on maternity or parental leave status. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the respondent was a proper party, that lack of knowledge did not defeat the nexus to adverse impact, and that identical treatment of persons on leave could result in inequality.

B. v. Top Medical Transportation Services

Judicial Review: Ankle Injury Disability Claim

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal's jurisdictional decision regarding whether an ankle injury qualifies as a disability under the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal improperly applied a screening standard and failed to conduct the required contextual analysis for determining disability.

T. v. Meta Platforms Inc.

HRTO Judicial Review: Federal Jurisdiction

This is a judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's refusal to reconsider a decision. The Divisional Court found that the HRTO lacked jurisdiction because Meta Platforms Inc. is a federally regulated undertaking, and thus the constitutional question of jurisdiction was decided on a standard of correctness.

Royal LePage RCR Realty Brokerage v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HRTO Judicial Review: Procedural Fairness & Default Decisions

A judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employer's failure to respond to Tribunal communications. The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable and procedurally unfair for relying on deeming provisions to waive the employer's rights without considering contextual factors or the principle that a client should not be penalized for counsel's failures.