153. Abutalib v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1697

​

In Abutalib v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1697, the applicant, Mr.
Abutalib, filed a human rights complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board,
alleging discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and religion. Abutalib, a Muslim
police officer, claimed that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by his
colleagues and supervisors after he disclosed his religious beliefs and requested
accommodations related to his religious practices. Specifically, he alleged that he
was harassed and unfairly treated in the workplace, including being assigned to
undesirable shifts and subjected to negative comments about his religion and ethnic
background.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and found that
Abutalib’s claims of racial and religious discrimination were supported by the facts.
The Tribunal concluded that the Toronto Police Services Board had failed to provide
a workplace free from discrimination, as Abutalib experienced harassment and
exclusion based on his race and religious identity. The Tribunal found that the
actions of his colleagues and supervisors created a hostile work environment for
Abutalib, and the police service had not taken adequate steps to address the
discrimination, despite being aware of the situation.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Abutalib, ordering the Toronto Police
Services Board to compensate him for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
The Tribunal also ordered the police service to take corrective measures, including
implementing anti-discrimination training and improving its handling of complaints
related to racial and religious harassment. The decision reinforced the obligation of
employers, particularly in law enforcement, to ensure a workplace free from
harassment and discrimination, and emphasized the need for proactive measures to
prevent and address such issues.

154. Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 9

In Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 9, the applicant, Ms. Romano, filed
a human rights complaint against her former employer, 1577118 Ontario Inc.,
alleging discrimination based on disability. Romano, who suffered from a mental
health condition, claimed that her employer failed to accommodate her disability and
treated her unfairly as a result. She alleged that, after disclosing her condition and
requesting accommodations, she was subjected to discriminatory actions, including
being disciplined and eventually dismissed from her position, despite the fact that
her disability impacted her ability to perform certain tasks.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the
employer had not fulfilled its legal duty to accommodate Romano's disability under
the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal determined that the employer failed
to engage in an appropriate accommodation process, even though Romano had
provided medical documentation supporting her need for workplace adjustments.
The Tribunal found that the employer did not make reasonable efforts to explore

alternative duties or provide modifications that would have allowed Romano to
continue working. Instead, the employer's actions, including disciplinary measures
and her eventual termination, were deemed discriminatory and a failure to
accommodate her disability.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Romano, ordering the employer to
compensate her for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The
decision reinforced the legal obligation of employers to provide accommodations to
employees with disabilities and highlighted the importance of engaging in a
meaningful accommodation process. The Tribunal also emphasized that failing to
provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, particularly
when such accommodations are feasible, constitutes discrimination under the
Ontario Human Rights Code.

​

155. Sinnett v. Orlick Industries, 2009 HRTO 916

In Sinnett v. Orlick Industries, 2009 HRTO 916, the applicant, Mr. Sinnett, filed a
human rights complaint against his employer, Orlick Industries, alleging
discrimination based on disability. Sinnett, who had a physical disability that limited
his ability to perform certain manual tasks, claimed that he was not provided with
appropriate accommodations at work. He contended that despite informing his
employer of his disability and requesting adjustments to his work duties, the
company did not make reasonable efforts to accommodate his condition, leading to
adverse treatment, including being assigned to unsuitable tasks and facing
performance-related issues.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined the employer’s actions and found
that Orlick Industries had failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate Sinnett’s disability.
The Tribunal determined that the employer did not take adequate steps to engage in
the accommodation process, such as exploring possible modifications to his job
duties or considering alternative roles within the company that would have aligned
with his abilities. Instead, the employer continued to assign Sinnett tasks that were
too physically demanding, which exacerbated his condition and contributed to his
challenges at work. The Tribunal concluded that the employer’s failure to provide
reasonable accommodation amounted to discrimination under the Ontario Human
Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Sinnett and ordered Orlick Industries to

compensate him for lost wages, as well as for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-
respect. The Tribunal also required the employer to take corrective actions to ensure

that employees with disabilities would be accommodated in the future. This case
emphasized the importance of employers engaging in a proactive and meaningful
accommodation process and underscored the legal obligation to accommodate
employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, as outlined in the Ontario
Human Rights Code.

​

156. Grange v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 633

In Grange v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 633, the applicant, Ms. Grange, filed a
human rights complaint against the City of Toronto, alleging discrimination based on
disability. Grange, a municipal employee, suffered from a disability that impacted her
mental health, and she claimed that the City failed to accommodate her needs after
she disclosed her condition. She argued that despite providing medical
documentation and requesting accommodations such as modified duties and flexible
work hours, the City did not engage in a proper accommodation process and instead
subjected her to unfair treatment, including being placed on sick leave and facing
difficulties in returning to work.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the City of
Toronto had not adequately addressed Grange’s accommodation needs. The
Tribunal determined that while the City had engaged in some accommodation
efforts, these were insufficient to meet Grange’s needs, and the City failed to
actively participate in an ongoing and meaningful accommodation process. The
Tribunal also noted that Grange was not provided with reasonable options to return
to her position with suitable modifications, despite her repeated requests and the
availability of accommodations that could have been implemented without undue
hardship to the City.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Grange, ordering the City of Toronto to
compensate her for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Additionally, the
Tribunal required the City to improve its accommodation processes to ensure
compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. The decision reinforced the
importance of employers fulfilling their duty to accommodate employees with
disabilities, including mental health conditions, and highlighted that failure to do so
can result in significant harm to the employee’s dignity and well-being.

​

157. Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604

In Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604, the applicant, Mr.
Phipps, filed a human rights complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board,
alleging discrimination based on race, disability, and reprisal. Phipps, a former police
officer with the Toronto Police Service, claimed that he was subjected to
discriminatory treatment, including harassment and unfair disciplinary actions, due to
his race and a disability resulting from a mental health condition. He argued that the
police service failed to accommodate his disability and that his complaints about
racial discrimination were not properly addressed, ultimately leading to a hostile
work environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and found that Phipps
had indeed experienced discrimination based on race and disability. The Tribunal
determined that the Toronto Police Services Board had failed to provide adequate

accommodations for Phipps’ mental health condition, despite his requests and
medical documentation supporting his need for workplace adjustments. Additionally,
the Tribunal found that Phipps was subjected to racial discrimination, including
negative treatment and harassment based on his racial background, and that the
police service did not take sufficient action to address these issues. The Tribunal
concluded that the Toronto Police Services Board's actions constituted violations of
the Ontario Human Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Phipps, ordering the Toronto Police
Services Board to compensate him for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
The Tribunal also required the police service to take corrective measures, including
implementing policies and training to prevent racial discrimination and ensure that
employees with disabilities receive appropriate accommodations. This case
emphasized the legal obligations of employers, particularly in public institutions like
the police, to address both disability and racial discrimination and to proactively
engage in accommodation processes to support affected employees.

158. Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010
HRTO 1779

In Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO
1779, the applicant, Mr. Groves, filed a human rights complaint against the Ontario
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, alleging discrimination
based on disability. Groves, who worked as a correctional officer, claimed that he
was subjected to discrimination when his employer failed to accommodate his
disability, which stemmed from a combination of physical and mental health issues.
He argued that despite providing medical documentation and requesting
accommodations, including modified duties and work adjustments, the Ministry did
not take appropriate steps to accommodate his needs and, instead, took disciplinary
actions against him.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the Ministry had not adequately
addressed Groves' disability-related needs. The Tribunal determined that the
employer did not make a meaningful effort to engage in an accommodation process
or explore reasonable alternatives that would allow Groves to continue working in a
modified capacity. Instead, Groves faced ongoing workplace challenges, including
being placed on administrative leave and being denied accommodations that would
have allowed him to continue working without exacerbating his condition. The
Tribunal concluded that the Ministry's failure to accommodate Groves' disability
amounted to discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Groves, ordering the Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services to compensate him for lost wages,
injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Additionally, the Tribunal required the
Ministry to improve its practices related to disability accommodation to ensure

compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. This case reinforced the
importance of employers’ responsibilities to engage in a proactive and effective
accommodation process and underscored the potential consequences of failing to
meet these obligations, particularly in the context of public service employees with
disabilities.

​

159. de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172

In de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172, the applicant, Mr. de
Pelham, filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, Mytrak Health
Systems, alleging discrimination based on disability. de Pelham, who suffered from
a mental health condition, claimed that after he disclosed his disability to the
company and requested accommodations, he was subjected to unfair treatment,
including a negative work environment and eventual termination. He argued that the
company failed to engage in an effective accommodation process and took actions
that were discriminatory, resulting in a loss of his employment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined the case and determined that
Mytrak Health Systems had failed to fulfill its obligation to accommodate de
Pelham’s disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal found that
while de Pelham made clear requests for accommodations and provided the
necessary medical documentation, the employer did not take reasonable steps to
support his needs. Instead, the company continued to subject him to conditions that
were detrimental to his health, including inappropriate job assignments and a lack of
necessary support, which ultimately led to his dismissal. The Tribunal concluded that
the employer’s failure to accommodate de Pelham’s disability amounted to
discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. de Pelham, ordering Mytrak Health

Systems to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-
respect. The Tribunal also required the employer to take measures to improve its

accommodation process and ensure compliance with the Ontario Human Rights
Code in the future. This case emphasized the responsibility of employers to engage
in a meaningful accommodation process and highlighted the importance of providing
reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities to avoid discriminatory
outcomes.

160. Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797

In Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797, the
applicant, Mr. Zaki, filed a human rights complaint against the Ontario Ministry of
Community and Social Services, alleging discrimination based on disability. Zaki,
who suffered from a mental health disability, claimed that his employer failed to
accommodate his disability, despite his requests for accommodations. He asserted
that the Ministry's lack of accommodation caused him significant distress and that he

was subjected to unfair treatment, including being unfairly disciplined and ultimately
removed from his position, despite his disability-related challenges.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the Ministry
had failed to properly accommodate Zaki’s disability. The Tribunal determined that
while Zaki had disclosed his condition and provided appropriate medical
documentation, the Ministry did not engage in an adequate accommodation process.
Instead of exploring suitable modifications to Zaki’s duties or providing reasonable
adjustments, the employer continued to impose work conditions that exacerbated his
disability. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to accommodate Zaki’s mental
health needs amounted to discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Zaki, ordering the Ministry of
Community and Social Services to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity,
feelings, and self-respect. In addition to the compensation, the Tribunal required the
Ministry to take corrective steps to improve its accommodation practices and ensure
compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. This case reinforced the obligation
of employers, particularly in the public sector, to proactively engage in
accommodation processes for employees with disabilities and to make reasonable
efforts to ensure that employees are supported in maintaining their employment.

​

161. Payette v. Alarm Guard Security Service, 2011 HRTO 109

In Payette v. Alarm Guard Security Service, 2011 HRTO 109, the applicant, Mr.
Payette, filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, Alarm Guard
Security Service, alleging discrimination based on disability. Payette, who suffered
from a mental health condition, claimed that after disclosing his condition to his
employer and requesting accommodations, he was subjected to unfair treatment. He
argued that the company failed to accommodate his disability, which negatively
impacted his ability to perform his job duties. Payette also contended that he was
unfairly disciplined and ultimately terminated due to his disability, despite his efforts
to work with the employer to address his needs.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and determined that
Alarm Guard Security Service had failed to properly accommodate Payette’s
disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal found that while
Payette had disclosed his mental health condition and provided medical
documentation, the employer did not make reasonable efforts to accommodate his
needs. Instead, Payette faced punitive actions, including disciplinary measures, and
was ultimately dismissed from his position. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to
engage in a meaningful accommodation process and to provide reasonable
adjustments for Payette’s disability amounted to discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Payette, ordering Alarm Guard Security
Service to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self

respect. The Tribunal also directed the employer to take steps to improve its
accommodation practices and ensure that future employees with disabilities are
properly supported. This case reinforced the employer's legal obligation to
accommodate employees with disabilities, emphasizing the need for a proactive and
collaborative approach to accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

162. O’Regan v. Firestone Textiles, 2010 HRTO 502

In O’Regan v. Firestone Textiles, 2010 HRTO 502, the applicant, Mr. O'Regan, filed
a human rights complaint against his former employer, Firestone Textiles, alleging
discrimination based on disability. O'Regan, who suffered from a disability related to
his physical and mental health, claimed that after he disclosed his condition and
requested accommodations, his employer failed to meet his needs. He contended
that the company did not provide the necessary adjustments to allow him to continue
working, leading to adverse treatment and ultimately his termination. O'Regan
argued that his disability-related needs were ignored, and he was unfairly disciplined
and dismissed due to the limitations caused by his condition.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence presented and
determined that Firestone Textiles had failed to provide reasonable accommodation
for O'Regan’s disability. The Tribunal found that while O'Regan had disclosed his
condition and requested accommodations, the employer did not engage in a
meaningful accommodation process. Instead of exploring options for adjusting his
duties or providing reasonable modifications, the employer subjected O'Regan to
disciplinary measures and ultimately dismissed him. The Tribunal concluded that the
failure to accommodate O'Regan's disability constituted discrimination under the
Ontario Human Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. O'Regan, ordering Firestone Textiles to
compensate him for lost wages and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The
Tribunal also required the employer to take corrective action to improve its
accommodation process and ensure that employees with disabilities would be
properly supported in the future. This case underscored the importance of
employers' obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code to engage in a
proactive accommodation process, especially when employees disclose disabilities
and request necessary adjustments to continue performing their job duties.

​

163. Nassiah v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2006 HRTO 18

In Nassiah v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2006 HRTO 18, the applicant,
Mr. Nassiah, filed a human rights complaint against the Peel Regional Police
Services Board, alleging discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and reprisal.
Nassiah, who worked as a police officer, claimed that he faced systemic racial
discrimination within the police force. He argued that after raising concerns about
the treatment of racial minorities within the organization, he was subjected to unfair

treatment, including harassment and biased disciplinary actions. Additionally,
Nassiah alleged that he was retaliated against for bringing forward his concerns
about racial discrimination, which led to a toxic work environment and negatively
impacted his career.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and found that
Nassiah had indeed been subjected to discrimination and retaliation by his
employer. The Tribunal determined that the Peel Regional Police Services Board
failed to properly address the racial discrimination that Nassiah experienced, and
that his claims of harassment and biased treatment were substantiated. It was found
that the police service did not take adequate steps to investigate or address his
complaints, and instead engaged in actions that were detrimental to his career and
well-being. The Tribunal also concluded that the retaliation Nassiah faced for raising
concerns about discrimination was a violation of his rights under the Ontario Human
Rights Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Nassiah, ordering the Peel Regional
Police Services Board to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings,
and self-respect. The Tribunal also required the police service to take corrective
actions, including implementing anti-discrimination training and improving its
processes for handling complaints of discrimination and retaliation. This case
highlighted the importance of employers, particularly in law enforcement, taking
proactive measures to prevent racial discrimination and retaliation in the workplace,
and underscored the need for fair treatment and accountability when employees
raise concerns about discriminatory practices.

164. Huo v. University of Western Ontario, 2012 HRTO 198

In Huo v. University of Western Ontario, 2012 HRTO 198, the applicant, Ms. Huo,
filed a human rights complaint against the University of Western Ontario, alleging
discrimination based on disability. Huo, a student at the university, suffered from a
physical disability that affected her ability to participate fully in her academic
program. She claimed that despite informing the university of her disability and
requesting accommodations, including extended time for exams and access to
alternative formats for course materials, the university failed to provide the
necessary support. Huo argued that the lack of accommodations created significant
barriers to her academic success and affected her ability to complete her
coursework effectively.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and found that the
University of Western Ontario had not fulfilled its duty to accommodate Huo’s
disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal determined that while
the university had some accommodations in place, they were insufficient to address
Huo’s specific needs. The university had failed to engage in a comprehensive
accommodation process or provide alternative solutions that would have enabled

her to complete her program successfully. The Tribunal found that the university's
failure to accommodate Huo's disability created an environment that was
discriminatory and hindered her ability to participate in her education on equal terms
with her peers.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Huo, ordering the University of Western
Ontario to compensate her for the injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect that she
had experienced due to the lack of appropriate accommodations. The Tribunal also
required the university to take corrective steps to improve its accommodation
practices and ensure that students with disabilities receive the necessary support to
participate fully in academic programs. This case emphasized the importance of
universities and other educational institutions in providing adequate
accommodations to students with disabilities, ensuring that they are not
disadvantaged or discriminated against in their pursuit of education.

​

165. Murchie v. JB's Mongolian Grill, 2006 HRTO 33

In Murchie v. JB's Mongolian Grill, 2006 HRTO 33, the applicant, Mr. Murchie, filed a
human rights complaint against his former employer, JB's Mongolian Grill, alleging
discrimination based on disability. Murchie, who had a disability related to his mental
health, claimed that after disclosing his condition to his employer, he was not
provided with the necessary accommodations to perform his job. He argued that his
disability led to a series of challenges in the workplace, and despite requests for
assistance, the employer did not take appropriate steps to accommodate him.
Murchie also alleged that he was subjected to unfair treatment and eventually
terminated because of his disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined the case and determined that JB's
Mongolian Grill had failed to meet its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights
Code by not accommodating Murchie’s disability. The Tribunal found that Murchie
had informed his employer of his disability and requested accommodations, but the
employer did not engage in a meaningful process to provide support. Instead of
addressing his needs, Murchie was subjected to adverse treatment, including
disciplinary measures and ultimately being dismissed from his position. The Tribunal
concluded that the employer’s failure to accommodate Murchie’s disability amounted
to discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Murchie, ordering JB's Mongolian Grill

to compensate him for lost wages, as well as for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-
respect. The Tribunal also required the employer to improve its practices to ensure

compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code in the future, particularly in relation
to providing accommodations for employees with disabilities. This case reinforced
the employer’s responsibility to engage in a proactive and ongoing accommodation
process and underscored the consequences of failing to meet those obligations in
the workplace.

​

166. Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534

In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534, the applicant, Mr.
Vallentyne, filed a human rights complaint against the Royal Canadian Legion,
alleging discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate. Vallentyne, a
member of the Legion, claimed that his disability, which was related to a mental
health condition, was not accommodated by the organization despite his requests.
He contended that after disclosing his condition, he was subjected to unfair
treatment and exclusion from participating fully in Legion activities. Vallentyne
argued that the Legion did not take the necessary steps to accommodate his needs
and failed to provide a supportive environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the Royal
Canadian Legion had indeed discriminated against Vallentyne by not providing the
required accommodations for his disability. The Tribunal concluded that the Legion
had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that Vallentyne could participate in its
activities and that his exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment under the
Ontario Human Rights Code. The organization did not engage in an appropriate
accommodation process and did not make efforts to modify its practices or policies
to accommodate Vallentyne’s disability, which exacerbated his challenges.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Vallentyne, ordering the Royal
Canadian Legion to compensate him for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
The Tribunal also required the Legion to take corrective measures, including
reviewing and revising its policies to ensure that members with disabilities are
properly accommodated in the future. This case underscored the importance of
organizations' obligations to provide accommodations for individuals with disabilities,
emphasizing the need for inclusivity and ensuring that all members have equal
access to participation in activities and services.

​

167. Clennon v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2009 HRTO 1242

In Clennon v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2009 HRTO 1242, the applicant, Ms.
Clennon, filed a human rights complaint against her former employer, Toronto East
General Hospital, alleging discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and disability.
Clennon, who worked as a nurse at the hospital, claimed that she was subjected to
discriminatory treatment in the workplace, particularly from her supervisors and
colleagues. She contended that her race and ethnicity played a role in the
mistreatment she experienced, and that her disability, related to a mental health
condition, was not properly accommodated by the hospital. She further claimed that
her requests for support and reasonable accommodations to manage her condition
were ignored, leading to a hostile work environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence presented and found
that the hospital had indeed discriminated against Clennon based on her race,

ethnicity, and disability. The Tribunal concluded that the hospital had failed to
engage in a meaningful accommodation process to address Clennon's mental health
needs, despite her requests for support and medical documentation. Furthermore,
the Tribunal found that Clennon was subjected to harassment and differential
treatment due to her racial background and disability, which created a toxic and
discriminatory work environment. The hospital's failure to properly accommodate her
and address the harassment amounted to a violation of the Ontario Human Rights
Code.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Clennon, ordering Toronto East
General Hospital to compensate her for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and
self-respect. The Tribunal also required the hospital to implement corrective
measures, including anti-discrimination and accommodation training for its staff and
management. This case highlighted the importance of employers' responsibilities to
both provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and to
address discriminatory practices and harassment within the workplace. The
Tribunal's decision reinforced the need for hospitals and other employers to create
inclusive and supportive environments for all employees, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or disability.

168. Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170

In Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170, the applicant, Mr. Kaj, filed a human
rights complaint against his former employer, Orsini Bros. Inns, alleging
discrimination based on disability. Kaj, who had a disability related to his physical
health, claimed that after disclosing his condition to his employer, he was subjected
to unfair treatment and denied reasonable accommodations. He contended that
despite his requests for support, including modified duties and assistance with his
work tasks, his employer did not take appropriate steps to accommodate his
disability. Kaj further argued that the lack of accommodation ultimately led to his
dismissal from the company.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and determined that Orsini
Bros. Inns had failed to meet its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code
by not providing the necessary accommodations for Kaj’s disability. The Tribunal
found that Kaj had clearly communicated his disability and needs to his employer,
but the employer failed to engage in a meaningful accommodation process. Instead
of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate Kaj’s limitations, the company
continued to subject him to work conditions that were detrimental to his health,
leading to his eventual termination. The Tribunal concluded that the employer’s
failure to accommodate Kaj’s disability amounted to discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Kaj, ordering Orsini Bros. Inns to
compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The
Tribunal also required the employer to improve its accommodation practices and

ensure that future employees with disabilities are appropriately supported in the
workplace. This case underscored the importance of employers taking proactive
steps to accommodate employees with disabilities and engaging in a thorough and
supportive accommodation process to avoid discriminatory treatment.

​

169. Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062

In Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the applicant, Mr.
Ebrahimi, filed a human rights complaint against the Durham District School Board,
alleging discrimination based on disability. Ebrahimi, a teacher, claimed that he was
denied accommodations for his disability, which was related to a mental health
condition, despite providing the school board with medical documentation outlining
his needs. He argued that after disclosing his condition, the board failed to engage
in an adequate accommodation process, and instead, he faced adverse treatment,
including exclusion from work-related activities and undue pressure to perform
duties beyond his capacity. He also contended that this lack of accommodation
negatively impacted his health and his ability to perform his job.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined the case and found that the
Durham District School Board had failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate Ebrahimi's
disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal determined that while
Ebrahimi had disclosed his condition and provided medical information, the school
board did not take sufficient steps to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead
of collaborating with Ebrahimi to adjust his duties or provide the necessary support,
the board's actions led to an environment that exacerbated his disability, which
contributed to his increasing distress and difficulty in fulfilling his role as a teacher.
The Tribunal concluded that the board's failure to accommodate Ebrahimi amounted
to discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Ebrahimi, ordering the Durham District

School Board to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-
respect. Additionally, the Tribunal required the school board to implement corrective

measures, including improving its accommodation policies and ensuring that
employees with disabilities are provided with appropriate support and adjustments in
the future. This case highlighted the employer's responsibility to engage in a
proactive and collaborative accommodation process, particularly when an employee
discloses a disability and requests support to remain in the workplace.

170. Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009
HRTO 203

In Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 HRTO
203, the applicant, Mr. Christianson, filed a human rights complaint against the
Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), alleging discrimination based
on disability and reprisal. Christianson, who had a disability related to mental health,

claimed that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the IPC after disclosing
his condition. He argued that following his disclosure, he was denied
accommodations and was unfairly treated, including being subjected to negative
performance evaluations. Christianson also alleged that he faced retaliation for
requesting accommodations, which led to further adverse treatment and ultimately
his resignation from the IPC.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the Ontario
Information and Privacy Commissioner had failed to meet its obligations under the
Ontario Human Rights Code by not providing Christianson with reasonable
accommodations for his disability. The Tribunal determined that despite
Christianson's disclosure of his mental health condition and requests for
adjustments, the IPC did not take sufficient steps to engage in a meaningful
accommodation process. Instead, Christianson was subjected to discriminatory
treatment and harassment, which worsened his mental health condition. The
Tribunal also concluded that the IPC's actions amounted to retaliation for
Christianson’s requests for accommodation, which violated the Ontario Human
Rights Code's provisions against reprisal.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Christianson, ordering the Ontario
Information and Privacy Commissioner to compensate him for lost wages, injury to
dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The Tribunal also required the IPC to implement
corrective measures, including improving its policies and training regarding the
accommodation of employees with disabilities and ensuring that employees are not
subjected to retaliation for asserting their rights. This case emphasized the
importance of employers engaging in proactive accommodation processes and
highlighted the consequences of failing to support employees with disabilities, as
well as the serious repercussions of retaliating against individuals for exercising their
rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

​

171. Mu v. Cargill Foods, 2011 HRTO 846

In Mu v. Cargill Foods, 2011 HRTO 846, the applicant, Mr. Mu, filed a human rights
complaint against his employer, Cargill Foods, alleging discrimination based on race
and national origin. Mu, who had a Chinese ethnic background, claimed that he was
subjected to racial discrimination and harassment by his co-workers and supervisors
at Cargill Foods. He argued that the discriminatory treatment took the form of
offensive comments, stereotyping, and exclusion, and that his attempts to address
the situation through internal channels were unsuccessful. Mu further contended that
his employer failed to take adequate action to stop the harassment, which created a
hostile work environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the evidence and found that Cargill
Foods had indeed failed to address the racial harassment and discrimination
experienced by Mr. Mu. The Tribunal concluded that the employer did not take

appropriate steps to investigate Mu's complaints or to ensure that he was protected
from ongoing discriminatory treatment. Despite Mu’s efforts to raise his concerns,
Cargill Foods did not implement effective measures to resolve the issue, leaving him
vulnerable to continued harassment. The Tribunal found that the company’s failure
to respond to the situation contributed to a work environment that was discriminatory
and harmful to Mu's dignity and well-being.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Mu, ordering Cargill Foods to
compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Additionally, the Tribunal required the company to take corrective actions, including
implementing anti-discrimination training for its staff and improving its processes for
handling complaints of racial harassment. This case highlighted the employer’s duty
to prevent and address racial discrimination in the workplace, ensuring that
employees are treated with respect and are provided with a safe and supportive
environment free from harassment and discrimination.

172. D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751

In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751, the applicant, D.R.,
filed a human rights complaint against the Upper Grand District School Board,
alleging discrimination based on disability. D.R., a student with a learning disability,
claimed that the school board failed to accommodate his educational needs, which
impacted his ability to succeed in his studies. Despite informing the school board
about his disability and requesting accommodations, D.R. argued that the board did
not provide the necessary support, including proper adjustments to his coursework,
extra time for tests, and specialized instruction. He contended that this lack of
accommodation led to his academic struggles and harmed his educational
experience.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the Upper
Grand District School Board had indeed failed to meet its obligations under the
Ontario Human Rights Code by not providing the necessary accommodations for
D.R.'s disability. The Tribunal determined that the school board had not properly
addressed D.R.'s educational needs, despite the fact that he had communicated his
requirements for support. It concluded that the school board did not engage in a
meaningful process to assess and provide appropriate accommodations, such as
modifications to teaching methods, that would have enabled D.R. to fully participate
in his education.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of D.R., ordering the Upper Grand District
School Board to provide appropriate accommodations for his educational needs,
which would allow him to access the curriculum in a way that is fair and equal to
other students. The Tribunal also required the school board to compensate D.R. for
injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect. This case underscored the
importance of educational institutions fulfilling their responsibility to accommodate

students with disabilities, ensuring that they receive the necessary support to
succeed and participate fully in the educational process.

173. Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287

​

In Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287, the applicant, Mr. Haskins,
filed a human rights complaint against his employer, TNS Canadian Facts, alleging
discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate. Haskins, who had a
disability related to a physical condition, claimed that he had informed his employer
of his disability and requested reasonable accommodations to assist him in
performing his job duties. Despite providing medical documentation and making
several requests for adjustments, such as a change in work duties and flexible
hours, Haskins argued that his employer did not take adequate steps to
accommodate his needs. He further contended that the lack of accommodation led
to significant stress, which ultimately impacted his health and job performance.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that TNS
Canadian Facts had failed to fulfill its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights
Code. The Tribunal concluded that the employer did not engage in a meaningful
accommodation process, nor did it provide the necessary adjustments to Haskins to
enable him to continue working in a way that addressed his disability. Despite
Haskins' attempts to communicate his needs, the employer did not take the
necessary actions, and as a result, Haskins suffered from undue stress and was
unable to perform his job effectively. The Tribunal found that the employer’s failure
to accommodate Haskins’ disability amounted to discrimination.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Haskins, ordering TNS Canadian Facts
to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The
Tribunal also required the employer to review and improve its policies on
accommodating employees with disabilities to ensure that future requests for
accommodation are handled in a proactive and effective manner. This case
emphasized the responsibility of employers to provide reasonable accommodations
for employees with disabilities, highlighting the need for a supportive work
environment that allows all employees to perform their duties without facing
discrimination.

174. Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2085

In Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2085, the
applicant, Ms. Nourhaghighi, filed a human rights complaint against her employer,
the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), alleging discrimination based
on her disability. Nourhaghighi, who had a physical disability, claimed that she was
denied reasonable accommodations by the school board, which impacted her ability
to perform her duties as a teacher. She argued that despite providing medical
documentation of her condition and requesting accommodations such as modified

work duties and additional support, the school board failed to make the necessary
adjustments. As a result, she experienced difficulties in performing her job, and the
lack of accommodation exacerbated her disability, leading to distress and negative
effects on her health.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the TCDSB
had failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate Nourhaghighi’s disability under the
Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal determined that the school board did not
take reasonable steps to provide the necessary accommodations, nor did it engage
in a meaningful and ongoing accommodation process with Nourhaghighi. Despite
her clear requests for adjustments to her workload and teaching environment, the
school board did not offer appropriate support, which contributed to her difficulties
and distress. The Tribunal concluded that this lack of accommodation amounted to
discrimination based on her disability.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Nourhaghighi, ordering the Toronto
Catholic District School Board to compensate her for lost wages, injury to dignity,
feelings, and self-respect. Additionally, the Tribunal required the school board to
implement corrective measures, including improving its policies and practices
related to accommodating employees with disabilities. This case underscored the
importance of employers, particularly educational institutions, fulfilling their obligation
to accommodate employees with disabilities, ensuring they have equal access to
opportunities and support to perform their roles effectively and without
discrimination.

​

175. Matos v. Transplay, 2010 HRTO 2527

In Matos v. Transplay, 2010 HRTO 2527, the applicant, Mr. Matos, filed a human
rights complaint against his former employer, Transplay, alleging discrimination
based on his disability. Matos, who had a physical disability, claimed that after
disclosing his condition to his employer, he was not provided with the necessary
accommodations to continue performing his job. He argued that despite making
several requests for adjustments, such as modified duties or workplace
modifications to accommodate his disability, his employer did not take sufficient
steps to support him. As a result, Matos contended that the lack of accommodation
caused him significant stress and led to his eventual resignation from the company.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that Transplay
had failed to meet its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The
Tribunal concluded that the employer did not engage in a meaningful
accommodation process or provide adequate support to Matos, even after he
disclosed his disability and requested accommodations. The Tribunal noted that
Transplay’s failure to address Matos' needs contributed to a work environment that
was not conducive to his well-being, and this lack of accommodation amounted to
discrimination based on disability.

​

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Matos, ordering Transplay to
compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Additionally, the Tribunal required the employer to take corrective actions, including
implementing improved policies and training for its management on how to handle
accommodation requests from employees with disabilities. This case emphasized
the importance of employers proactively engaging in the accommodation process
and ensuring that employees with disabilities receive the support they need to
remain productive and avoid unnecessary harm to their health and well-being.

176. Nelson v. Lakehead University, 2008 HRTO 41

In Nelson v. Lakehead University, 2008 HRTO 41, the applicant, Mr. Nelson, filed a
human rights complaint against Lakehead University, alleging discrimination based
on disability. Nelson, who had a disability related to his mental health, claimed that
the university did not provide adequate accommodations to support his needs as a
student. Despite disclosing his condition and providing medical documentation,
Nelson argued that the university failed to provide the necessary adjustments to help
him succeed academically. Specifically, he pointed to issues such as a lack of
extended time for exams and insufficient support in the classroom, which negatively
impacted his academic performance and caused significant distress.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that Lakehead
University had indeed failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate Nelson's disability
under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal concluded that the university
did not engage in a meaningful process to assess and implement the
accommodations that Nelson required. Instead of offering reasonable adjustments
such as extended testing time or access to other support services, the university's
response to Nelson's requests was inadequate. The Tribunal emphasized the
importance of universities providing appropriate accommodations to students with
disabilities to ensure they have equal access to education.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Nelson, ordering Lakehead University
to compensate him for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Additionally, the
Tribunal required the university to review its accommodation policies and
procedures to ensure that students with disabilities receive the necessary support in
a timely and effective manner. This case highlighted the obligation of educational
institutions to take proactive steps in accommodating students with disabilities,
ensuring they are provided with the support needed to fully participate in their
education without facing discrimination.

​

177. Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006
HRTO 22

In Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO
22, the applicant, Mr. Greenhorn, filed a human rights complaint against his former

employer, Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep, alleging discrimination based on disability
and failure to accommodate. Greenhorn, who had a physical disability, claimed that
after disclosing his condition to his employer, he was not provided with reasonable
accommodations to assist him in performing his job duties. He argued that the
employer did not make sufficient adjustments to his work environment, which
impacted his ability to fulfill his responsibilities. Despite his requests for
accommodations, including modified duties, Greenhorn was subjected to a hostile
work environment, ultimately leading to his resignation.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep
had indeed failed to meet its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code by
not providing Greenhorn with reasonable accommodations for his disability. The
Tribunal concluded that the employer did not engage in a proper accommodation
process or take sufficient steps to assess and address Greenhorn’s needs. It also
found that the employer’s actions, or lack thereof, created an environment that was
detrimental to his health, contributing to his distress and resignation. The Tribunal
recognized the employer's failure to ensure that Greenhorn could continue to work in
a supportive and non-discriminatory environment.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Greenhorn, ordering Belleville Dodge

Chrysler Jeep to compensate him for lost wages, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-
respect. The Tribunal also mandated that the employer implement corrective

measures, including improving its policies and training regarding disability
accommodations to prevent similar incidents in the future. This case highlighted the
importance of employers fulfilling their duty to accommodate employees with
disabilities, ensuring that they are given the necessary support to perform their
duties effectively and without facing discrimination.

178. McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 499

In McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 499, the applicant, Mr.
McKay, filed a human rights complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board,
alleging discrimination based on disability. McKay, a police officer with the Toronto
Police Service, claimed that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment due to a
mental health condition, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which
resulted from his work-related experiences. He alleged that, after disclosing his
disability, the police service failed to provide appropriate accommodations, such as
modified duties or a supportive work environment, which led to further distress and
complications in his ability to perform his duties. McKay also argued that he faced
negative consequences when he sought accommodations, including being placed
on administrative leave.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the case and found that the Toronto
Police Services Board had not fulfilled its duty to accommodate McKay’s disability
under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal concluded that, although the

police service had some procedures in place for accommodating employees with
disabilities, it had not properly engaged in a meaningful accommodation process
with McKay. The Tribunal found that the employer did not offer adequate or
appropriate accommodations to address McKay's PTSD, nor did it provide him with
the support he needed to continue working in a role that was manageable given his
condition. This failure to accommodate exacerbated McKay’s mental health issues
and contributed to his inability to return to work.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. McKay, ordering the Toronto Police
Services Board to compensate him for lost wages and injury to dignity, feelings, and
self-respect. The Tribunal also required the police service to implement measures to
improve its policies and practices related to accommodating employees with mental
health disabilities, ensuring that such employees receive proper support and are not
subjected to discrimination. This case highlighted the duty of employers, especially
in high-stress occupations like policing, to accommodate employees with mental
health disabilities, ensuring they can continue to work in a supportive environment
free from discrimination.

​

179. Levkivska v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2016 HRTO 270

In Levkivska v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2016 HRTO 270, the
applicant, Ms. Levkivska, filed a human rights complaint against Peel Condominium
Corporation No. 231, alleging discrimination based on disability. Levkivska, who had
a disability that affected her ability to navigate stairs and walk long distances,
claimed that the condominium corporation failed to provide her with reasonable
accommodation regarding accessibility in the building. She argued that despite
informing the corporation about her disability and requesting accommodations,
including the installation of a ramp or an elevator to improve accessibility, the
corporation did not take appropriate steps to meet her needs, which restricted her
ability to fully access common areas and move around the building.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Peel Condominium Corporation
No. 231 had not fulfilled its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The
Tribunal concluded that the condominium corporation failed to adequately
accommodate Levkivska’s disability. While the corporation had made some
adjustments to the building, such as providing a wheelchair-accessible parking
space, the Tribunal found that the corporation had not taken reasonable steps to
address the more significant barrier that Levkivska faced — the lack of proper
accessibility features for her disability, such as ramps or an elevator that would allow
her to access all areas of the building. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the
corporation to have a proactive approach in addressing disability-related
accommodations in housing.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Levkivska, ordering the condominium
corporation to make the necessary accommodations to improve accessibility within

the building. This included providing more accessible features, such as a ramp or
installing an elevator, to ensure that Levkivska could access all areas of the
condominium. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the corporation to compensate
Levkivska for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. This case underscored the
duty of housing providers to make accommodations for tenants with disabilities,
ensuring they have equal access to housing and its amenities, free from
discrimination.

180. S.S. v. Taylor, 2012 HRTO 1839

In S.S. v. Taylor, 2012 HRTO 1839, the applicant, S.S., filed a human rights
complaint against her former landlord, Mr. Taylor, alleging discrimination based on
disability and harassment. S.S., who had a physical disability, claimed that her
landlord subjected her to a series of discriminatory actions after she disclosed her
disability and requested accommodations in the rental unit. She alleged that Mr.
Taylor refused to provide necessary modifications to the unit, such as installing
accessible features, which would have helped her manage her disability.
Additionally, S.S. reported that the landlord made derogatory comments about her
disability, which created a hostile and intimidating living environment, ultimately
affecting her well-being.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Mr. Taylor had indeed
discriminated against S.S. by failing to accommodate her disability under the Ontario
Human Rights Code. The Tribunal concluded that the landlord had not provided
adequate support or reasonable adjustments, such as modifying the rental unit to
meet S.S.'s accessibility needs. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the landlord’s
behavior, including the derogatory comments and the refusal to provide
accommodations, created a toxic and hostile environment for S.S., amounting to
harassment based on her disability. The Tribunal emphasized that landlords are
obligated to ensure tenants with disabilities are provided with equal access to
housing and a respectful living environment.

As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of S.S., ordering Mr. Taylor to compensate
her for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The Tribunal also required the
landlord to make the necessary accommodations in the rental unit to meet S.S.'s
disability-related needs. Furthermore, Mr. Taylor was ordered to undergo training on
the Ontario Human Rights Code and its obligations concerning disability
accommodations. This case highlighted the importance of landlords adhering to their
legal responsibilities to provide reasonable accommodations and maintain a
harassment-free environment for tenants with disabilities, ensuring their rights are
respected under the law.

​