Ian Anderson

The applicant, who has paranoid schizophrenia, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

He alleged that after reporting a bomb threat to university security and being issued a trespass notice, security officers laughed and told him to 'go back to CAMH'.

The Tribunal heard testimony from the applicant and the security officers involved.

The adjudicator found the security officers to be credible and concluded that, despite the applicant's sincere belief, the alleged discriminatory comments were not made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Reply well outside the permitted time limit.

The respondent objected to the late filing but raised no specific allegations of prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the Reply contained no new material facts and that the respondent would not be prejudiced by its admission.

The Tribunal accepted the late-filed Reply.

The complainant requested reconsideration of two previous Tribunal decisions regarding remedies for a breach of settlement.

She argued the decisions conflicted with prior Tribunal jurisprudence and incorrectly applied contract law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decisions had already addressed the prior jurisprudence and that the new contract law argument could have been raised earlier and did not involve a matter of general or public importance.

The Commission requested an order for the specific enforcement of unfulfilled public interest remedies from a Memorandum of Settlement, following a previous Tribunal decision finding a contravention of the settlement.

The Commission also requested an order requiring the respondents to notify the Commission if they return to Ontario.

The Tribunal granted the request for specific enforcement, ordering the personal respondents to attend anti-discrimination training and establish a comprehensive anti-harassment policy.

However, the Tribunal declined to order the respondents to notify the Commission of their movements, finding such an order extraordinary and unwarranted in the absence of submissions.

The applicant and the Commission alleged that the respondents breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a human rights complaint for sexual harassment.

The respondents failed to make two settlement payments on time and completely failed to comply with "public interest remedies" requiring them to post human rights notices, attend anti-discrimination training, and establish an anti-harassment policy.

The applicant sought general damages, damages for mental anguish, the replacement value of the public interest remedies, and legal costs.

The Tribunal held that a breach of settlement is essentially a breach of contract, and damages must be assessed under common law contractual principles (Hadley v. Baxendale).

The Tribunal found that damages for mental distress and the replacement value of the public interest remedies were not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, especially given the settlement's entire agreement clause stating the monetary payment was the sole consideration.

The Tribunal awarded $200 in interest for the delayed payments and declined to award costs for lack of jurisdiction.

The Commission was given leave to request an order for specific performance of the public interest remedies against the individual respondents.

A case management conference call was held to determine the remaining issues in dispute and the procedures for addressing them.

The complainant agreed that certain previously identified issues were no longer relevant.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of a one-day hearing in London, Ontario, and set deadlines for outstanding production requests and the submission of suggested hearing dates.

The complainant brought a request to add the Ontario Human Rights Commission and an individual as potential respondents to the human rights complaints.

The parties reached a resolution, and the complainant's allegations against the individual personally were withdrawn.

The request to add the potential respondents was dismissed on consent.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether section 53(8) of the amended Human Rights Code precluded the Tribunal from hearing original allegations against the respondents or adding potential responding parties to a complaint referred by the Commission.

The Tribunal held that section 53(8) does not apply to the referral of the subject-matter of a complaint pursuant to old section 36, nor does it apply to an amendment to such a referral, provided the amendment relates to the same subject-matter.

The Tribunal directed further submissions on whether the proposed amendments fell within the referred subject-matter and other preliminary issues.

The Tribunal issued interim directions setting a schedule for the complainant to file amendments to her submissions and for the respondents to file responses.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including the addition of potential responding parties, production requests, admissibility of evidence, and duplication of counsel.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision regarding two consolidated complaints involving the complainant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the respondents.

The decision addressed whether prior procedural rulings by the Tribunal Chair precluded the complainant from advancing certain issues, including adding the Commission and its Legal Director as respondents, alleging abuse of process, and requesting that her original complaint be heard due to an alleged breach of settlement.

The Adjudicator found that the prior decisions were not final determinations on these substantive issues, as they primarily dealt with procedural matters or were made when the complainant was not yet a party.

Consequently, the complainant was permitted to proceed with her requests, and a schedule for further submissions was established.

The Commission challenged the jurisdiction of the newly assigned adjudicator, arguing that under section 33(3) of the Human Rights Code, reassignment of complaints is only permissible in exceptional or rare circumstances.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, finding that the previous adjudicator's decision to reassign the complaints in response to a motion for recusal based on alleged bias constituted an exceptional and rare circumstance.

In an interim decision regarding consolidated human rights complaints, the Tribunal identified the remaining procedural and substantive issues in dispute, including allegations of bias against a previous adjudicator, abuse of process by the Commission, and requests for production.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare submissions on whether the previous adjudicator's decisions finally determined certain issues and scheduled further hearing dates to address these preliminary matters.

The complainant, who suffered from depression and anxiety, took a medical leave of absence from her employment.

The respondents failed to promptly provide her with a Record of Employment and benefit cheques, and subsequently terminated her employment while she was awaiting medical clearance to return to work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $12,945.84 for lost wages, and $198.90 for lost benefits, and to implement public interest remedies including posting Code Cards and distributing the Commission's disability policy.

The respondent, General Motors Defence, brought a motion regarding a constitutional question and objected to the Attorney General of Ontario participating without prior notice.

The Tribunal held that section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act is mandatory and entitles the Attorney General to adduce evidence and make submissions on constitutional questions without requiring prior notice of intention to participate.

Alternatively, the Tribunal would have exercised its discretion to extend the time for the Attorney General to intervene.

The Tribunal invited submissions from the other parties regarding the respondent's alternative request for an adjournment.

The Attorney General of Ontario indicated an intention to intervene regarding a Notice of Constitutional Question delivered by the respondent.

The respondent objected to the intervention and asserted prejudice due to the late filing of written argument.

The Tribunal directed any party opposing the intervention or seeking an adjournment to file written submissions.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada Corporation (GDLS-C) and CAW-Canada and its Local 27 sought intervenor status in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship by a defence contractor.

The Tribunal granted both requests for intervention on a limited basis, finding that GDLS-C had a unique perspective and specialized knowledge regarding multi-jurisdictional defence businesses, and noting that the immediate parties consented to or did not oppose the interventions.

In a human rights complaint challenging a pre-employment drug testing policy, the Commission sought production of documents regarding the respondent's drug testing and workplace incidents outside Ontario, as well as historical data prior to the policy's adoption.

The respondent objected, arguing the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to Ontario and the historical data is irrelevant, and requested a stay pending judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the stay and ordered production, finding the documents arguably relevant to whether the policy is a bona fide occupational requirement.