David J. Mullan

The respondents filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding they had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal.

The request listed nine alleged errors of fact and law but failed to provide reasons, submissions, or address the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for failing to comply with the Rules and failing to provide any basis to justify reconsideration.

The complainant, a key employee with a heart condition, went on short-term disability due to adverse reactions to medication.

While on leave, the employer assumed he would not return to his position and hired permanent replacements without adequately inquiring into his medical prognosis or discussing accommodation options.

The Tribunal found the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the complainant's disability.

Furthermore, the employer's subsequent refusal to provide the complainant with corporate financial information regarding his shareholdings, motivated by anger over his human rights complaint, constituted an unlawful reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded $30,000 for injury to dignity and $124,000 for lost wages.

The complainant, a bilingual secretary and customer service representative, went on medical leave due to acute situational reaction and depression after discovering a coworker had taken inappropriate photographs of her in the workplace.

When her doctor indicated she would need three to six months off work, the employer terminated her employment, claiming her position was pivotal and they could not operate without her.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.

The employer failed to fulfill its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, as it did not inquire into her medical condition or seriously explore hiring a temporary replacement.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity and $12,169.12 for lost wages.

The complainant, who has bipolar disorder, was hired by the respondent as a senior test analyst.

Shortly after starting work, he disclosed his condition to his supervisor and requested monitoring for symptoms.

Days later, he was summarily dismissed without any assessment of his condition or the possibility of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability by failing to fulfill the procedural dimensions of the duty to accommodate.

The precipitate dismissal triggered a severe manic episode.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages, along with public interest remedies.

The respondent sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of a human rights complaint against him.

The respondent was represented by in-house counsel provided by the Regional Municipality of York.

The Tribunal held that while it could not award counsel fees for in-house counsel under the common law rule, it could award disbursements.

Although no actual disbursements were proven, the Tribunal found it had discretion to award nominal costs.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was not trivial or vexatious, but found the respondent suffered undue hardship due to the Commission's vacillation and reversal of its recommendation to refer the matter to a hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $500 in costs to the respondent.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour against the respondent restaurant and its managers.

During cross-examination on the second day of the hearing, the complainant admitted to lying during his evidence-in-chief regarding his mitigation efforts and subsequent employment.

Following an adjournment, the Commission withdrew from carriage of the complaint and the complainant withdrew his complaint.

The Tribunal formally dismissed the complaint and reserved the respondents' right to speak to costs.

During a hearing for a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment, the complainant admitted under cross-examination to lying about his post-employment work history.

The respondents moved for an adjournment sine die to consider their position and potential motions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the seriousness of lying under oath and the need for all parties, including the Tribunal itself, to consider potential actions such as contempt proceedings or reporting the matter for perjury investigation.

The respondent, Kimberly-Clark Inc., brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had disclosed that he was acting as a non-witness consultant for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Manulife Financial, a company that provided services to the respondent and whose actions were implicated in the human rights complaint.

The adjudicator granted the recusal motion, finding that his inability to provide full details of his consulting arrangement due to solicitor-client privilege, combined with the potential need to rule on Manulife's status in the proceedings, established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent's request for an order directing the appointment of a specific type of substitute adjudicator was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, a probationary police constable, alleged that her coach officer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status.

She claimed he created a sexualized work environment through inappropriate comments and told her she had to choose between her family and her career.

The Tribunal found that while the complainant raised a prima facie case on some allegations, the respondent's direct contradictions, the delay in raising the allegations, and the presence of other significant workplace tensions undermined the complainant's credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the complainant failed to establish her case on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Black employee who adhered to the Rastafarian faith, alleged that he was subjected to racial and religious discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment by his employer and supervisors.

He also alleged that his eventual dismissal and the denial of overtime were reprisals for a previous human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant had experienced racial harassment prior to a 1995 settlement, there was insufficient corroborative evidence to prove the allegations of ongoing discrimination, harassment, or reprisal after that date.

The Board concluded that the complainant's dismissal was based on the obsolescence of his machine and his hostile attitude, rather than discriminatory reasons, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Black employee who adhered to the Rastafarian faith, alleged that he was subjected to racial and religious discrimination, harassment, and reprisals during his employment and that his subsequent dismissal was discriminatory.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant had experienced racial harassment prior to a 1995 transfer, those issues had been settled.

Regarding the post-1995 allegations and his dismissal, the Board found insufficient corroborative evidence to support the complainant's claims.

The respondents provided credible testimony and documentary evidence refuting the allegations of discriminatory wage practices, overtime assignment, and a poisoned work environment.

The Board concluded that the dismissal was based on the obsolescence of the complainant's machine and his hostile attitude, not on prohibited grounds.

The complaint was dismissed.