Canada is Free and Freedom is Its Nationality

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

December Ontario HRT Cases

Anyone who has ever tried to sift through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal cases at CanLII will know what I'm talking about when I say it is a headache. You have case decisions mixed in with responses to requests to expediate, add respondents, etc, etc, etc, and it takes a lot of time to wade through it to find the stuff you actually want. So I have sifted through the cases for December to find the documents that someone interested in the OHRT might actually be interested in reading.

One thing that strikes you is that in many (not all) of these cases the person bringing charges is not what you would consider a model employee (or client, etc) who was innocently and unfairly subject to discrimination. In many cases the employee charging the company with discrimination was a bad worker, obviously argumentative and difficult, insubordinate, lying, or an opportunist desperately trying to keep their job. It's nutty reading.

And yes this is some, I'm not saying it is all.

Epileptic woman
asked not to bring service dog to buffet in restaurant. Tribunal found in favour and issued $500 fine.

Woman with one child in subsidized housing claimed discrimination on the basis of family size because her request to receive an expedited upgrade to a larger dwelling was refused. Tribunal dismissed case.

Injured worker, who was in a trial period with his employer, dismissed. Tribunal awards $9,760 and other remedies (training for management staff, etc)

Student complains that makeup school did not include makeup suitable for darker skin tones in makeup kits and that she was expelled when she complained about this. Tribunal dismissed case.

Woman claimed that she was refused admission to law school because she was Russian. Based on her poor academic record the Tribunal dismissed the case.

Woman claimed she was dismissed because of a chemical sensitivity. Respondent alleges that she was dismissed because they were moving the work overseas. Tribunal dismissed the case.

Candidate for President of a Committee claimed that she was not given the position because of gender discrimination. Respondent claims that election process was restarted because of serious allegations of improper notification for voters. Tribunal dismisses case.

Injured employee had a dispute over payment with employer and was dismissed, according to the respondent, for threatening his employer and the company. Tribunal dismissed case.

Construction worker alleges protracted workplace harassment based on gender. Tribunal dismisses case.

Worker alleges improper response to disability and improper payment. Tribunal dismisses case.

Male Real Estate agent uses vulgarity with a female client (who also used a vulgarity). Tribunal finds him guilty of gender discrimination and fines him $300

Applicant defies Tribunal orders (publication ban) and case is dismissed.

Case to determine if applicant was denied church membership in retaliation for bringing a HR charge against church.

Prisoner alleges sexual discrimination because the provincial director did not exercise her discretion to allow applicant to remain in a youth facility when she turned 20.

Applicant fired while on leave for heart surgery. Tribunal orders over $37,000 in compensation.

Worker claims that she was subject to discriminatory comments and actions on the part of the managers at her workplace. Tribunal dismisses case.

Applicant, on return from maternity leave, requests alteration in job from full-time to part-time but insists that she has the right to require job description, hours, and pay in the new position to meet her specifications. Tribunal dismisses case.

Applicant was fired as a result of criminal record. Alleges this was discrimination. Tribunal dismisses case.

Insurance broker, on medical leave, was fired in an office restructure and was not rehired for a different position. Alleges that this was discrimination. Tribunal dismisses case.

1 comment:

  1. "Woman claimed she was dismissed because of a chemical sensitivity. Respondent alleges that she was dismissed because they were moving the work overseas. Tribunal dismissed the case."

    Now why would respondent want to be moving work overseas? Inquiring Tribunals want to know.