H. Albert Hubbard

The parties advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that they had reached a settlement of all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding be terminated.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a non-party intervenor requested a publication ban on portions of an investigation report and minutes of settlement produced in the proceeding, citing privacy and the integrity of confidential settlements.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding insufficient evidence to override the strong public interest in open hearings and the need for transparent decision-making.

However, the Tribunal granted a request to redact the home addresses of Ministry personnel from the exhibits due to safety concerns.

The complainant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court against the respondent Ministry for failing to disclose documents.

The Ministry objected to the intervenor union (OPSEU) participating in the contempt motion, arguing it fell outside the scope of their limited intervenor standing.

The Tribunal ruled that OPSEU may make submissions, as the alleged refusal to implement systemic remedies directly impacts its members and the union can provide valuable perspective on the Ministry-wide impact of the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

The Ministry brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the complainant's contempt motion, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ministry argued that the adjudicator had prejudged the contempt issue by stating in a prior interim decision that the Ministry had failed to disclose relevant documents in a timely way.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the impugned statement was a factual observation regarding late disclosure, not a prejudgment of whether the non-disclosure was wilful or contemptuous.

The adjudicator concluded that a reasonable, informed person would not apprehend bias.

The complainant sought the production of minutes of settlement of grievances relating to three substantiated Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy complaints.

The respondent Ministry argued the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The Tribunal held that settlement privilege must be established on a case-by-case basis using the Wigmore criteria, rather than as a prima facie class privilege.

The Tribunal found the Ministry failed to establish that the harm caused by disclosure outweighed the benefit to the correct disposal of the litigation.

Even if a prima facie privilege applied, the Tribunal found that an exception was warranted because disclosure was necessary for the attainment of an overriding interest of justice.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the settlement agreements.

The complainant requested the Tribunal to reconvene to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous orders.

The Ministry objected, arguing a lack of particulars and asserting that the complainant must lead evidence first to establish a prima facie case of non-compliance.

The Ministry also questioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce the orders.

The Tribunal held that it retained supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the implementation of its orders.

It found that sufficient particulars were provided for the initial issues raised.

Given the Ministry's control over the relevant information and the protracted history of the proceedings, the Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to order the Ministry to present its evidence first.

The complainant requested that the hearing be reconvened to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous Tribunal orders from 2002 and 2007.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume and suspended the operations of the TEDC Compliance Committee pending resolution.

The Tribunal also ordered the Ministry to produce various documents related to workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, respond to a METRAC report, and provide METRAC personnel with access to Ministry staff for evaluation purposes.

The third party consultants appointed to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's orders regarding workplace discrimination and harassment prevention (WDHP) at the Toronto East Detention Centre submitted their First Quarterly Report of 2006.

The consultants recommended three modifications to the Tribunal's previous rulings: allowing managers to take action on WDHP matters they witness directly, permitting external investigators to handle multiple complaints simultaneously, and enabling senior managers to conduct initial fact-finding for WDHP complaints.

The Tribunal adopted the recommendations with certain modifications, emphasizing the need for management accountability and proper training while ensuring the protection of complainants' rights.

The applicants, who were non-parties implicated in allegations of harassment and discrimination, sought a stay or adjournment of the Tribunal's proceedings pending a judicial review of a previous decision that denied them standing.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and concluded that the circumstances were not exceptional and did not warrant a stay.

The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience favoured the complainant, who would suffer prolonged harm from further delays, and that any potential harm to the applicants' reputations was not irreparable.

The motion for a stay or adjournment was denied.

The Tribunal issued interim rulings regarding a third-party report on the selection of external investigators for workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal approved the consultants' criteria for selecting investigators and rejected the Ministry's and Commission's requests for a 'balanced' roster of complainant-side and respondent-side lawyers.

The Tribunal also ruled that draft investigation reports should only be provided to the parties to the complaint, not exclusively to the Ministry, and that investigators should not include recommendations in their final reports to protect the integrity of the fact-finding process.

During a human rights hearing regarding workplace discrimination and harassment, a motion for standing was brought by two non-party employees whose conduct was the subject of evidence adduced by the complainant.

The applicants sought standing to cross-examine witnesses and defend their interests, arguing that the evidence might negatively impact their employment or reputations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicants had not infringed the complainant's rights and thus were not parties under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that granting standing to anyone whose conduct is questioned in evidence would cause undue delay and chaos, and that the applicants' interests could be adequately addressed if they were called as witnesses.

The complainant sought interim orders regarding the handling of workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal clarified that all complaints made at the Centre must be subject to external investigation.

The Tribunal ruled that the third party consultants, rather than the Compliance Committee, are responsible for formulating recommendations regarding the external investigation process, including the roster of eligible investigators and selection criteria.

The complainant's request to order the reprocessing of previously commenced investigations was denied.

The parties sought clarification of the Tribunal's 2002 implementation orders regarding systemic remedies for a racially poisoned workplace at the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry argued that the independent consultants appointed to develop and oversee anti-racism training were exceeding their mandate by proposing pilot projects, monitoring compliance, and addressing racism towards inmates.

The Tribunal rejected the Ministry's narrow interpretation, confirming that the consultants have broad authority to design and implement a comprehensive change plan to eradicate workplace racism.

The Tribunal also denied the Ministry's motion to call an expert witness to challenge the consultants' proposal, granted limited intervenor standing to the union, and extended the timeline for completing the change process to the end of 2009.

The applicant, a Senior Investigator with the respondent Ministry's Independent Investigations Unit, sought to intervene in an ongoing human rights proceeding.

He argued that an expert report to be introduced by the Commission recommended abolishing his unit, which could affect his employment.

The Board of Inquiry denied the request, finding no statutory basis to add him as a party under section 39 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board also declined to grant amicus curiae status, concluding that his intervention would unduly delay the proceedings and that his interests were already adequately represented by the respondent Ministry.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents moved to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his consulting work for the Ministry and that his prior lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not apply to evidence of human rights infractions or expert opinions on systemic change, and that the fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence.

However, the adjudicator ordered that the expert testify after the respondents' evidence to avoid prejudice.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents brought a motion to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness, Dr. Ralph Agard.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his prior consulting work for the Ministry and that his previous lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not protect evidence of human rights infractions or evaluations of the workplace atmosphere.

Furthermore, the prior fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence or transform him into an advocate.

The expert was permitted to testify, though his evidence was ordered to be heard after the respondents' factual evidence.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning workplace harassment and discrimination.

The complainant alleged further acts of reprisal and a continued poisoned environment.

The Board ruled that compensation must include a gross-up for income tax purposes to satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Furthermore, the Board determined it retained jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued discrimination and reprisals related to the implementation of its orders, distinguishing its remedial role from disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents sought an award of costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code following the dismissal of a complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainants acted in bad faith by being untruthful about matters central to the case and engaging in a malicious publicity campaign.

The Board also found the complaints were trivial, frivolous, and vexatious, and that the Commission acted irresponsibly in pursuing them.

Although the respondents established entitlement to costs, the Board declined to award non-legal costs or solicitor-and-client legal costs because the self-represented respondent deliberately exaggerated and misrepresented his time and expenses.

The Commission was ordered to pay the respondents' legal costs on a party-and-party basis, plus disbursements.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry assessed special damages following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainant by terminating her employment due to pregnancy.

The Board awarded $12,677 for lost wages, calculated by taking the total period of unemployment until she found permanent work, and deducting amounts for anticipated unpaid maternity leave, child care expenses she would have incurred, and temporary employment earnings.

The Board also awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, rejecting the respondent's argument that the complainant failed to mitigate her damages.