Jeffry A. House

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.

The complainant, a registered nurse, was denied family benefits for her same-sex conjugal partner under her employer's group benefit plan.

The Board of Inquiry found that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the exemption in section 25(2) of the Code for benefit plans discriminating on the basis of marital status did not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in compensation for loss of dignity and to amend its benefit plans to provide coverage for same-sex couples.

The respondents, the Ontario Hospital Association and Gord Cunningham, brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights complaint against them, arguing that the agreed statement of facts showed they did not administer the employee benefits plan at issue.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued it was premature to dismiss the complaint before hearing evidence.

The Board of Inquiry declined to dismiss the complaint, noting that the Commission might have other evidence implicating the respondents.

However, the Board found it would be an abuse of process to proceed without the respondents knowing the case against them, and ordered the Commission to provide appropriate disclosure within thirty days.

The respondent Ministry brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint as an abuse of process due to delay.

The Ministry argued that it could not present a defence because documents generated during the civil service competition in question had been routinely destroyed.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was not chargeable to the Commission and there was no evidence of an ulterior purpose.

The Board held that the Ministry could not rely on its own policy of routinely destroying internal documents to insulate itself from a human rights inquiry.

The complainant was dismissed from her employment as a legal secretary after requesting two to three weeks of medical leave for a bilateral-reduction mammoplasty to treat virginal breast hypertrophism.

The employer's unwritten policy allowed only five days of sick leave per year and resulted in her termination.

The Board of Inquiry found that her condition constituted a physical disability under the Human Rights Code.

While there was no direct discrimination, the sick leave policy constituted constructive discrimination, and the employer failed to demonstrate that accommodating her absence would cause undue hardship.

The employer was ordered to pay lost wages, general damages, and interest, and to implement a Code-compliant sick leave policy.