Alvin B. Rosenberg

The complainant, who is visually impaired, brought a human rights complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for failing to announce all surface transit stops.

Following an interim decision finding the TTC in breach of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal issued final remedies.

The Tribunal ordered the TTC to implement automated stop announcements with a 98% reliability rate, conduct extensive training for staff and management, hold annual public forums on accessibility, and pay $35,000 in damages to the complainant.

The complainant and respondents both wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the merits of the case not be dealt with.

A hearing was convened to address these requests.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint and declined the respondents' request for costs.

The complainant, who is blind, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) discriminated against him and other visually impaired persons by failing to consistently announce all streetcar and bus stops.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the failure to announce all stops constituted a prima facie breach of the Human Rights Code.

The TTC argued that requiring drivers to announce all stops would cause undue hardship due to safety concerns, but the Tribunal rejected this defence, noting the lack of expert evidence and the fact that drivers already announce stops in inclement weather.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requiring the TTC to implement a program to clearly and consistently announce all surface stops within 30 days.

The respondent employer brought a motion for the production of the complainant's medical records relating to her asthma, as well as records of Workers Compensation, Welfare, and Unemployment Insurance payments.

The respondent also sought an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion for production, limiting the medical records to the period from five years before the complaint onward, and adjourned the matter sine die to allow for the production of the documents.

The respondents sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of complaints alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's decision to refer the matter to a hearing was driven by a policy analyst's inappropriate focus on the respondents' lack of formal policies rather than evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith, and that the respondents suffered undue hardship.

Costs of $100,000 were awarded against the Commission.

The complainants, former employees of the respondents, alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and reprisal.

The female complainant testified to ongoing sexual comments and solicitations by the personal respondent.

After she confronted him and filed a police report, she was dismissed.

The male complainant, who supported her, was also dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the complainants' evidence, finding that the respondents violated the Human Rights Code through sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages to both complainants, and ordered the personal respondent to implement a comprehensive workplace harassment policy.

The Commission and the Complainant sought the appointment of a monitor to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's previous interim order requiring the respondent transit commission to provide reliable accommodation.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing it was an improper delegation of authority.

The Tribunal found that a monitor was necessary to expedite the interim order and appointed a former Chair of the Tribunal as Monitor, with authority to deal with the parties and oversee the planning of educational seminars and audits.

Two Black employees filed human rights complaints alleging they were subjected to racial discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and discriminatory termination by their employer.

The complainants alleged that the new vice president made racist comments, tolerated racial graffiti, and fired them because of their race.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints, finding the complainants' evidence lacked credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the terminations were based on poor performance, insubordination, and inappropriate behaviour towards coworkers and customers, and that the employer took appropriate steps to address workplace graffiti.

The respondents brought a motion requesting the Adjudicator to review his own earlier decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to review its own decision under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Procedures Act because the rules under section 25(1) do not deal with the matter.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the order sought, as the motion was brought too late in the proceeding after the complainant and the Commission had closed their case.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay the human rights complaints, alleging that the Commission's investigation was flawed, biased, and inadequate.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that its hearing is de novo.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal found that even a flawed investigation does not deprive it of the ability to conduct a hearing unless it results in an abuse of process, and there was no evidence that the respondents were prevented from defending the case.

The complainant, a TTC employee diagnosed with narcolepsy, was forced to transfer from the Transportation Division to the Maintenance Division due to his disability.

Under the collective agreement, he lost all his accrued seniority upon transfer.

The TTC agreed to accommodate him by restoring his full seniority, but the Union refused, arguing it would violate the collective agreement and cause undue hardship.

The Board of Inquiry found that the seniority provisions discriminated against disabled workers and that the Union failed to prove undue hardship.

The Union was ordered to grant the complainant full seniority, cease applying the discriminatory provision, and pay $22,000 in damages for mental anguish.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on handicap.

The complainant had previously settled his separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents who owned other franchise locations.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding the respondents were aware of the misconception regarding ownership and the operations were intermingled.

The respondents also moved for a non-suit to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion without prejudice, requiring the respondents to elect whether to call evidence before a non-suit motion could be heard, as the tribunal needed to hear all evidence to determine his liability.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents, Iswood Holdings Inc. and Keel Staff Enterprises Inc., after discovering that the original corporate respondent did not own all three franchise locations involved.

The adjudicator granted the motion, noting the companies were intermingled and the president of all three was aware of the misconception.

Subsequently, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent for lack of evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed this motion as premature, ruling that the respondent must either elect whether to call evidence or wait until all evidence is heard before bringing a motion for non-suit.

The respondent Union brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to union membership because of handicap.

The complainant and the TTC had previously entered into a settlement agreement regarding a separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement agreement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss or stay a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The complainant, a transit operator diagnosed with narcolepsy, was transferred to a maintenance position but lost his accumulated seniority due to the collective agreement's lack of system-wide seniority.

The union argued the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, was an abuse of process, and improperly expanded the issues.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint clearly raised the issue of whether the loss of seniority upon disability-related transfer constituted adverse discrimination, establishing a prima facie case.

The Board also held that it had jurisdiction to make orders affecting future practices and other union members.