Gerry K. McNeilly

The complainant, a black vice-principal, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was repeatedly denied promotion to the position of principal by the Durham Board of Education.

The Board of Inquiry found that the school board engaged in both direct and systemic discrimination.

The complainant was subjected to racist comments during an interview, denied permission to take the principal's course, and offered less release time than white counterparts.

The school board's informal and inconsistently applied promotion criteria disproportionately disadvantaged black teachers, who were concentrated in treatment schools and hindered from transferring to regular schools.

The complaint against the corporate respondent was upheld, while the complaint against the personal respondent was dismissed.

The complainant, a lesbian in a conjugal relationship, applied to change her surname to a hyphenated version of her and her partner's surnames under the Change of Name Act.

The Office of the Registrar General refused to process the application because the Act's spousal election provision only applied to opposite-sex couples.

The Board of Inquiry found that this refusal constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of services, contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Registrar General to process the name change application and awarded the complainant $500 in general damages.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The respondents argued that the Commission's process was an abuse of process, breached procedural fairness, and that the significant delay between the events and the referral prejudiced their ability to defend the case.

The adjudicator applied the test for delay prejudice and found no evidence of prejudice of sufficient magnitude to impact the fairness of the hearing.

The adjudicator also found that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion to accept the complaint despite some events occurring outside the six-month window, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant referral to the Board of Inquiry.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion seeking an order to compel the Ontario Human Rights Commission to permit access to the investigator who investigated the complaint.

Although the Commission subsequently agreed to allow access, the respondents requested a written ruling.

The Board of Inquiry held that the principles of disclosure from criminal and civil law apply to human rights proceedings.

The fruits of the investigation are not the property of the Commission, and there is no property in a witness.

Therefore, the respondents' counsel is legally entitled to interview the Commission's investigator.