Table of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions in Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC cases)
April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012
A. Definitions and explanatory notes
B. Final Decisions
C. Substantive Interim Decisions
A. Definitions and explanatory notes
Breach of settlement is when one party does not comply with a settlement agreed upon at a mediation
Decision on remedy – deferred means that the Tribunal upheld a finding of discrimination, but was to decide on what remedies to award
a later date.
General damages are awarded for pain and suffering as a result of the discrimination
An interim decision is not a final decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. It usually deals with a procedural question or issues
about how the case is going to proceed.
Interim Remedy is a request to the Tribunal to require the Respondent do (or not do) something even though the case has not yet been
decided (such as keep an employee’s hours at the same level).
Judicial Review refers to a request to Ontario’s Divisional Court to determine if a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision was correct in
law.
Merits refers to the particulars of the case and whether there is evidence or connection with the Human Rights Code.
A public interest remedy is to try to make sure that the discrimination will not happen in the future.
Request for Reconsideration is a request to the Tribunal to reconsider a final decision.
S 45(1) refers to Section 45(1) of the Human Rights Code about whether an Application has been appropriately dealt with in another
proceeding.
Special damages are awarded for particular financial losses such as lost wages, benefits
1
A.
FINAL DECISIONS
Boyce v. Toronto
Community Housing
Corp., 2011 HRTO 827
Decision
date
28 April 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Disability
Employment
Application granted
General damages: $4,000
Couchie v. Ontario
(Municipal Affairs and
Housing), 2011 HRTO 689
14 April 2011
M.K. v. [...] Ontario, 2011
HRTO 705
3 April 2011
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin
Employment
Sex, Reprisal
Employment
Application granted
General damages: $20,000
General damages: $40,000
Special damages: $1,228 (lost wages)
Segal v. Toronto (City),
2011 HRTO 728
Toussaint v. Ontario
(Health and Long-Term
Care), 2011 HRTO 760
15 April 2011
Sexual Orientation
19 April 2011
Place of Origin
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Public interest remedies: within 90 days,
the Respondent must:
i) review a copy of the Commission’s
Policy on Preventing Sexual and Genderbased Harassment,
ii) create a written policy for dealing with
complaints of harassment at his place of
business, and
iii) send a copy of the written policy to the
Applicant
Application dismissed (merits)
Application dismissed (merits)
2
Eldary v. Songbirds
Montessori School Inc.,
2011 HRTO 1026
Knibbs v. Brant Artillery
Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO
1032
Decision
date
27 May 2011
30 May 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin
Disability,
Reprisal
Employment
Application dismissed (merits)
Employment
General damages:
Applicant 1 - $20,000
Applicant 2- $13,000
Special damages:
Applicant 1 - $16,083.99 (lost wages)
Applicant 2 - $6,084 (lost wages) and
compensation for lost Employment
Insurance benefits
Retiounsky v. Roma
Premium Meats, 2011
HRTO 1176
Segal v. Toronto (City),
2011 HRTO 728
M.K. v. 1217993 Ontario
(Wimpy’s Diner), 2011
HRTO 1362
16 June 2011
Sex (pregnancy)
Employment
15 April 2011
Sexual Orientation
20 July 2011
Sexual Harassment,
Reprisal
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Employment
Public interest remedies: within 90 days,
the Respondent is required to:
i) retain a human rights expert to
develop a human rights policy
ii) complete the Commission’s online
human rights training and
iii) provide copies of the certificates
of completion to Applicants
Application dismissed (merits)
Application dismissed (merits)
Request for Reconsideration by
Respondents – denied
(original decision found in favour of
Applicant and awarded $40,000 in general
damages and lost wages
3
Lauzon v. Ontario
Provincial Police, 2011
HRTO 1404
Service Employees
International Union, Local
1 Ontario v Human Rights
Tribunal of Ontario and
Megan Barker, Court File
No. 607/10 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
Kotsopoulis v. Casino
Rama Services Inc., 2011
HRTO 811
Kohli v. International
Clothiers, 2012 HRTO 21
Decision
date
26 July 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Disability
Employment
General damages: $8,000
15 June 2011
Disability
Employment
21 April 2011
Sex (transgender)
Goods, Services or
Facilities
5 Jan. 2012
Sex
Employment
Public interest remedy:
Respondents must stop relying on a
particular vision standard in the Constable
Selection System
Applicant withdraws application.
Respondent decides not to pursue its
application for Judicial Review of Interim
Decision in Barker v. Service Employees
International Union, 2010 HRTO 1921
because of the withdrawal
Application dismissed (delay)
Application upheld
Decision on remedy - deferred (see below)
4
Kohli v. International
Clothiers, 2012 HRTO 153
Decision
date
19 Jan. 2012
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Sex
Employment
General damages: $12,000
Special damages: $23,586.59 (lost wages)
Thai v. Hing Loong
Investments Ltd., 2011
HRTO 2227
9 Dec. 2011
Frankson v. WSIB
(Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board), 2011
HRTO 2107
22 Nov. 2011
Disability
Disability
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Employment
Public interest remedies: within 60 days,
Respondents required to:
i)
complete the Commission’s online
human rights training and provide
copies of the certificates of
completion to Applicant, and
within 90 days
ii)
required to retain a human rights
expert
iii)
develop a human rights policy and
iv)
internal complaints process
General damages: $2,500
Public interest remedies:
Within 90 days, Respondent must review
Commission’s policy on duty to
accommodate and complete
Commission’s Human Rights 101 online
training module.
General damages: $5,000
Public interest remedy:
WSIB must amend its Labour Market ReEntry (LMR) policy so that any references
to non-work related disabilities include
non-physical disabilities, such as a learning
disability
5
Medeiros v. Cambridge
Canvas Centre, 2011
HRTO 1519
Decision
date
15 Aug. 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Sexual Harassment
Employment
Breach of settlement – upheld
General damages: $5,000
Special damages: $1,500
Public interest remedy:
Goods, Services or
Facilities
The respondents will undertake
human rights training as agreed to
under the Minutes of Settlement,
dated February 26, 2010 and
provide written confirmation of
completion to counsel for the
applicant
No monetary damages
Ivancicevic v. Ontario
19 Sept.
(Consumer Services), 2011 2011
HRTO 1714
Disability
Knibbs v. Brant Artillery
Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO
2005
Ornelas v. Casamici
Restaurant, 2011 HRTO
1531
King v. Enersource Hydro
Mississauga, 2010 HRTO
699
4 Nov. 2011
Disability, Reprisal
Employment
16 Aug. 2011
Sexual Harassment
Employment
Request for Reconsideration by Applicant denied
30 March
2010
Race
Accommodation
Application dismissed (merits)
Public interest remedy:
The provincial regulation not allowing a
person with medical marijuana in a
licensed premises was held invalid
Request for Reconsideration by
Respondent - denied
6
M.O. v. Ottawa Catholic
District School Board,
2010 HRTO 1754
O’Brien v. Organic Bakery
Works Inc., 2012 HRTO
457
Thai v. Hing Loong
Investments Ltd., 2012
HRTO 574
Griffiths v. Children’s Aid
Society of Toronto, 2011
HRTO 1684
Decision
date
26 Aug. 2010
5 March
2012
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Disability
Goods, Services or
Facilities
General damages: $10,000
Disability
Employment
Special damages: $0.48/km for the return
distance between Applicant’s home and
Learning Centre, multiplied by 194 days
(travel expenses)
General damages: $13,000
Special damages: $6,273.75 (lost wages)
20 March
2012
13 Sept.
2011
Disability
Disability
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Employment
Public interest remedy:
Within 60 days, Respondent is required to
complete the Commission’s Human Rights
101 online training module and confirm to
Applicant that he has done so
Request for Reconsideration (as to
General damages and liability of second
Respondent) – denied
Request for Reconsideration, as to public
interest remedy – granted:
Within 90 days, Respondent must ensure
that the entrance to the store is accessible
and barrier free to individuals with
disabilities who use scooters
Request to withdraw Application (on
consent of both Parties)
Request to Re-activate Application
following Deferral (on consent of both
Parties) – Granted in Griffiths v. Children’s
Aid Society of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 1685
7
Jakobek v. Toronto
Standard Condominium
Corporation No. 1626,
2011 HRTO 1901
1147335 Ontario Inc., o/a
Weston Property
Management v. Torrejon,
2012 ONSC 1978
Decision
date
21 Oct. 2011
27 March
2012
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Disability
Accommodation
General damages:
$5,000 to charitable cause
Disability
Employment
Public interest remedies:
i) Respondents must review
Commission’s policy on duty to
accommodate and complete
Commission’s Human Rights
101 online training module
ii) Respondent must amend
condominium’s by-laws to
allow for mobility assistive
devices to be parked in the
parking garage
On Judicial Review (by the Respondent):
Application dismissed, and
$7,000 in Costs
Original Application in Torrejon v. 1147335
Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1513:
General damages - $20,000
Special Damages - $2,640 (lost wages)]
8
Selective Personnel
Limited v. Thompson,
Court File No. 585/09
(Unreported)
B.
Decision
date
27 April 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Result/remedy
Disability
Employment
On Judicial Review by the Respondent:
Application dismissed and $1,500 in costs
Original Application in Thompson v.
Selective Personnel, 2009 HRTO 1224HRTO
General damages - $3,000
Public interest remedy:
Respondent required to remove
offending question about psychiatric care
from its employment application form
SUBSTANTIVE INTERIM DECISIONS
Byaruhanga v. Toronto
Police Services Board,
2010 HRTO 2273
Lavallee v. Metro
Ontario, 2011 HRTO
890
Decision
date
16 Nov. 2010
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Request to dismiss (abuse of process) – denied
Employment
HRTO defers application on its own initiative,
pending the conclusion of the Applicant’s WSIB
claim
Employment
Employment
Request to Intervene by Union
Applicant consents to Respondent’s Request to
Defer (s. 45.1)
Request to Amend Application – granted
Wang v Delta Chelsea
Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1161
20 June 2011
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin
Disability, Age,
Record of offences,
Reprisal or threat of
reprisal
Disability
Ewing v. Thunder Bay
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 1066
3 June 2011
Age, Disability
6 May 2011
9
Decision
date
2 June 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Sex, Reprisal
Employment
Requests to Amend - granted
27 July 2011
Race, Colour,
Sexual orientation,
Age
Goods, Services or
Facilities
D.H. v. Splash
International Marketing
Inc., 2011 HRTO 1190
21 June 2011
Sexual Harassment
Employment
The issue of the application of s. 45.1 in the
context of the Police Services Act is a
significant one, and therefore, the HRTO on its
own initiative requests whether the OHRC and
the Office of the Independent Police Review
Director would like to intervene.
Request to dismiss (s. 45.1) – denied
Trowell v. 6286160
Canada Limited, 2010
HRTO 859
20 April 2010
Sex (pregnancy)
Employment
Loney v. Combusco
Enterprises, 2011 HRTO
1050
Claybourn v. Toronto
Police Services & TPS
Board, 2011 HRTO 1406
HRTO on its own initiative determines the
following:
1) Whether Application against Corporate
Respondent is stayed because of a bankruptcy
proceeding – Code proceedings stayed
pursuant to s. 49 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act. Applicant has one year to advise whether
she has lifted the stay or taken other steps to
enable her Application against Corporate
Respondent to proceed.
2) Whether Application against Personal
Respondent should be dismissed – dismissed
(lack of correct address).
10
Higgins v Humber River
Regional Hospital, 2011
HRTO 1074
Decision
date
6 June 2011
Aslett v. Homewood
10 Aug. 2011
Health Centre Inc., 2011
HRTO 1489
Erskine v. Anchor Inn,
20 April 2011
2011 HRTO 797
CAW-Canada v.
24 Aug. 2011
Presteve Foods Ltd.,
2011 HRTO 1581
CAW-Canada (Group of
employees) v. Presteve
Foods, 2011 HRTO 2025
8 Nov. 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin, Citizenship,
Ethnic Origin
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Request to Amend - granted
Creed
Goods, Services, or
Facilities
Age
Employment
Request to Amend - granted
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin, Citizenship,
Ethnic Origin, Sex
(harassment)
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin, Citizenship,
Ethnic Origin, Sex
(harassment)
Employment
Request for HRLSC to Intervene - granted
Employment
Respondent consents to Applicant’s request to
produce transcripts of preliminary hearings in
the criminal matter and all other arguably
relevant documents
Request for Organizational Respondent to
produce all hospital records pertaining to
treatment of Applicant - granted
Request to Amend - granted
11
A.D. v. Club Cranberry
Vacations, Inc., 2011
HRTO 2004
Decision
date
4 Nov. 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Disability
Employment
Applicant consents to Respondent’s Request to
produce the following documents: tax returns,
passport, prescription records, and OHIP
summary
Respondent’s Request to Produce all medical
records from 2007 to the present and a list of
all occasions Applicant travelled outside her
city of residence since March 2010 – denied
Dream Team v. Toronto
(City), 2012 HRTO 25
Seberras v. Workplace
Safety and Insurance
Board, 2012 HRTO 115
Wilberforce v. Lennox
and Addington Family
and Children’s Services,
2011 HRTO 1764
5 Jan. 2012
17 Jan. 2012
27 Sept.
2011
Disability
Disability
Disability, Sex,
Sexual solicitation,
Reprisal
Accommodation,
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Goods, Services or
Facilities
Employment
HRTO directs Respondent to confer with
Applicant before renewing any Requests to
Produce
Request for Early Dismissal (lack of jurisdiction;
no prima facie case) – Denied.
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
HRTO on its own initiative determines that it
has jurisdiction over the application.
HRTO directs any intervenors to advise it of
any intent to intervene on the merits of the
application.
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1; abuse of process) –
Denied.
12
GG v. 1489024 Ontario
(Image Printing &
Signs), 2012 HRTO 135
Kelly v. CultureLink
Settlement Services,
2011 HRTO 1948
Prelogar v. Fine Line
Imports Inc., 2011
HRTO 1458
White v. 529204
Ontario, 2011 HRTO
1814
XY v. Toronto Housing
Connections, 2011
HRTO 1989
Islam v. Big Inc., 2012
HRTO 64
Decision
date
17 Jan. 2012
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Sex, Sexual
solicitation
Employment
27 Oct. 2011
Disability
Employment
3 Aug. 2011
Sex (pregnancy)
Employment
Request for Order During Proceedings (abuse
of process) – Granted in part. Findings of fact
and verdict from criminal proceeding
accepted. Applicant must, however, prove
discrimination under the Code against all
Respondents.
Applicant’s Request to Produce arguably
relevant documents in Corporate
Respondent’s possession – Damages
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1) - Denied.
5 Oct. 2011
Disability, Age
Employment
2 Nov. 2011
Disability
11 Jan. 2012
Race, Colour,
Ancestry, Place of
Origin, Ethnic
Origin, Creed and
Reprisal
HRTO grants the request by parties to have
some witnesses testify by teleconference call.
HRTO denies Applicant’s request to have the
polygraph examiner testify at the hearing and
determines that the polygraph report is
inadmissible.
Accommodation, Goods, Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Services or Facilities
Employment
Request to Consolidate cases by Respondents
– Damages
13
Decision
date
31 Oct. 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Disability, Reprisal
Employment
HRTO directs Organizational Respondent to
notify all of its current status and whether a
stay is in effect with respect to the proceeding
before the Tribunal against it.
Mounir v. Brampton
Neighbourhood
Resource Centre, 2012
HRTO 549
Malik v. 440 Rathburn
(Etobicoke) Ltd., 2011
HRTO 1955
Qiu v. United Wings
Enterprise, 2012 HRTO
183
Vanstone v. Mid-Huron
Landfill Site Board, 2011
HRTO 2104
16 March
2012
Disability, Reprisal
Employment
Request for Adjournment by Applicant –
Damages Applicant and Personal Respondent
have agreed in principle to settle the case.
28 Oct. 2011
Place of Origin,
Family Status
Accommodation
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
24 Jan. 2012
Sex, Sexual
solicitation
Employment
Request for Adjournment by Respondent –
Damages
22 Nov. 2011
Sexual harassment
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Robinson v. United
Steelworkers, 2010
HRTO 2498
16 Dec. 2010
Employment
Applicant’s Request to Produce the minutes of
Board meetings and the personnel file of
Personal Respondent – Denied for now.
Request to Dismiss in part (delay) - Denied.
Mounir v. Brampton
Neighbourhood
Resource Centre, 2011
HRTO 1964
Gomez v. Grand River
Foods, 2011 HRTO 2106
(retained for ghost
submissions, HRLSC not
on record)
22 Nov. 2011
Sex, Sexual
solicitation,
Reprisal
Disability
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Employment
Respondent’s Request to Produce medical
records – Denied for now.
Request to Defer by Respondent (s. 45.1) –
Denied. The grievances have not been referred
to arbitration despite the passage of time.
14
Bonnett v. Toronto
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 1666
Mughal v. 2138894
Ontario Inc. , 2012
HRTO 425
Bishop v. Grand Erie
District School Board,
2011 HRTO 1998
Decision
date
8 Sept. 2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Goods, Services, or
Facilities
Requests to Amend by Applicant – Damages
28 Feb. 2012
Ancestry, Colour,
Place of Origin,
Ethnic Origin
Disability
Employment
Request to Defer by Respondent (s. 45.1) –
Damages
3 Nov. 2011
Disability
Employment
Request to Intervene by Union – Damages
Kovacevic v. ECE
Distribution, 2012
HRTO 390
Chung v. Angela Wai
Ching Luk Fung, 2012
HRTO 305
24 Feb. 2012
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Employment
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1, abuse of process) –
Will be dealt with at preliminary hearing.
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
14 Feb. 2012
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Keefer v. 54 Rideau
Terrace Investments,
2012 HRTO 224
Khatkur v. Peel District
School Board, 2012
HRTO 472
31 Jan. 2012
Disability
Accommodation
6 March
2012
Race, Colour, Place
of Origin, Ethnic
Origin, Reprisal
Employment
Request to Dismiss in part (delay) – Damages
Parris v. Canada’s
Wonderland Company,
2012 HRTO 249
Schreiner v. A.G.
Simpson Automotive
Inc., 2011 HRTO 1355
3 Feb. 2012
Race
Employment
Request to Dismiss (no reasonable prospect of
success) – Denied.
Requests to Amend by Applicant – Damages
18 July 2011
Disability
Employment
Request to Intervene by Union – Damages
HRTO directs Respondents to provide the last
known address of Personal Respondent.
Request for Interim Remedy (temporary ramp)
– denied
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1, abuse of process) –
Will be dealt with at the hearing.
15
Decision
date
31 Jan. 2012
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
Thompson v. 1552754
Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO
225
Thompson v. CF
16 Dec. 2011
Industries, 2011 HRTO
2262
Wright v. Dhawan, 2011 18 April 2011
HRTO 739
Disability
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Sex
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Employment
Wright v. Dhawan, 2011 1 June 2011
HRTO 1047
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Employment
Wright v. Dhawan, 2011
HRTO 1807
Wright v. Dhawan, 2012
HRTO 103
Meak v. Ottawa Mould
Craft Ltd., 2011 HRTO
1789 (retained for
ghost submissions,
HRLSC not on record)
Claybourn v. Toronto
Police Service, 2011
HRTO 1904
Ferguson v. Toronto
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 722
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Sexual harassment,
Reprisal
Sex (fertility
treatment)
Employment
Respondent makes a Request to Produce
documents from third parties (Crown and
Toronto Police Services) relating to other,
similar complaints filed by the Applicant.
Applicant opposes Request, and HRTO
requests further submissions from the parties.
HRTO requests responses from the third
parties re: their position on Respondent’s
Request to Produce Crown Brief.
Applicant and the third parties consent to
Respondent’s Request to Produce Crown Brief.
Respondent’s Request to Produce undisclosed
documents in the Crown Brief – Denied.
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Race, Colour,
Sexual orientation,
Age
Goods, Services, or
Facilities
5 Oct. 2011
17 Jan. 2012
3 Oct. 2011
20 Oct. 2011
14 April 2011
Employment
Employment
Requests to Intervene by Legal Clinics, OHRC,
and Independent Police Review Director –
Damages
Request for Extension (to file response) by
Respondent – Damages
16
Ferguson v. Toronto
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 1785
Jacques v. The
Dominion of Canada
General Insurance
Company, 2012 HRTO
504
Oliver v. South Simcoe
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 1662
Decision
date
30 Sept.
2011
Ground(s)
Social area
Nature of request - result
9 March
2012
Disability
Contract & Goods,
Services, or Facilities
Request to Dismiss (no reasonable prospect of
success) – Denied.
8 Sept. 2011
Ancestry, Creed,
Reprisal
Employment
Request to Re-Activate Deferred Application –
Applicant required to file affidavit re: delay.
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1) – Will be dealt
with at preliminary hearing.
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1, abuse of process) –
Denied.
Request by Respondent to have HRTO staff
member give evidence at hearing – Denied.
Oliver v. South Simcoe
Police Services Board,
2011 HRTO 2095
Patterson v.
Mississauga (City), 2012
HRTO 598
18 Nov. 2011
Ancestry, Creed,
Reprisal
Employment
23 March
2012
Colour, Age,
Reprisal
Employment
Request to Dismiss (delay) – Denied.
Kohli v. International
Clothiers, 2011 HRTO
1687
Correia v. Ombudsman
(Ontario), 2012 HRTO
501
13 Sept.
2011
Sex
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
9 March
2012
Disability
Employment
Request to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Request to Intervene by Union –Parties are
required to respond to the Request if they
oppose it.
17
Tapia v. Jones Lang
Lasalle Real Estate
Services Inc., 2011
HRTO 1638
G.M. v. Ariss Place
Residential Care and
Treatment, 2012 HRTO
367
Decision
date
1 Sept. 2011
Social area
Nature of request - result
HRTO directs Corporate Respondent to file
response.
22 Feb. 2012
Yuill v. Canadian Union 22 Feb. 2012
of Public Employees,
2012 HRTO 366
Simard v. Nipissing
18 Aug. 2011
Condominium
Corporation No. 4, 2011
HRTO 1554
Griffiths v. Children’s
Aid Society of Toronto,
2011 HRTO 1685
Pilkey v. Guild
Automotive
Restorations Inc., 2012
HRTO 209
Di Virgilio v. 1210670
Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO
571
Ground(s)
Disability or
Perceived disability
Accommodation
Family status
Accommodation
HRTO determines Applicant’s mother should
continue to be the litigation guardian because
there is no demonstrated conflict of interest
since the mother’s involvement with the
Children’s Aid Society has concluded.
HRTO appoints Applicant’s sister as litigation
guardian because there is no demonstrated
conflict of interest.
Request to Amend by Applicant – Granted in
part. Ground of reprisal added, and grounds of
marital status and age are not appropriate to
add.
Request to Dismiss (s. 45.1, abuse of process) –
Granted in part. Family status allegation is
dismissed.
Request to proceed with one of two
applications, Damages
13 Sept.
2011
Disability
Employment
27 Jan. 2012
Sex, Family status,
Reprisal
Employment
Requests to Amend by Applicant – Damages
Goods, Services, or
Facilities
Request for Adjournment by Respondent –
Denied.
Request by Applicant to withdraw application
against certain Respondent – Damages
19 March
2012
Disability or
Perceived disability
18