Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 5, 2008

Two human rights applications alleging marital status discrimination consolidated due to similar facts and issues.

The applicants filed separate applications alleging discrimination in employment based on marital status against the same respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

Pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules, the adjudicator ordered that the applications proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

Chorikov v. York Condo Corporation No. 201, 2008 HRTO 229

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 29, 2008

Applicant ordered to explain failure to attend mediation or face abandonment of human rights application.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled mediation without providing an explanation or requesting a rescheduling.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that failure to participate impedes the efficient processing of the application.

The applicant was ordered to provide a written explanation for his absence and confirm his intention to continue the proceeding by a specified date, failing which the application would be treated as abandoned.

Wohl v. Commissionaires – Great Lakes, 2008 HRTO 192

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 27, 2008

Tribunal sets schedule for submissions on respondents' request to defer application pending grievance arbitration.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a scheduled grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the parties and the union to provide written submissions on the request to defer.

Quinn v. Community Living Essex County, 2008 HRTO 193

Personal respondent removed from human rights complaint after corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.

The personal respondent, Fion Tran, sought to be removed as a party to the human rights complaint.

The Commission consented, noting that the corporate respondent, Tai Pan Vacation, acknowledged vicarious liability for her actions.

The complainant opposed the removal.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal ordered that Fion Tran be removed as a party.

Sui-Fun Chan v. Tai Pan Vacation, 2008 HRTO 191

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2008

Respondents given final deadline to file Response after failing to respond and attend mediation.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the 35-day period and failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by a specified deadline, with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

Philip Streeter v. HR Technologies Inc. and Richard Booth, 2008 HRTO 174

Selwyn Pieters

22 cases2008–2024

Nadya Tymochenko

In Private Practice31 cases2000–2025

Monmi Goswami

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2007–2017

Lauri Wall

1 case2008–2008

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2008

Tribunal defines class for access to youth records and orders police to produce relevant documents.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Tribunal determined the class of persons entitled to access youth records released by a Youth Court Judge's order.

The Tribunal defined the class broadly to include the Tribunal, parties, counsel, and necessary witnesses or experts, rejecting requests to restrict access further.

The Tribunal also ordered the Peel Regional Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to make full production and disclosure of all arguably relevant documents to facilitate mediation.

K.F. v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 179

Michael Failes

8 cases1987–2010

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2008

Accommodation claims dismissed under s. 45.1 due to prior arbitration; harassment claims require timeliness submissions.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation allegations arose from the same facts and were appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator, who applied the correct legal principles.

However, the harassment allegations were not part of the arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the accommodation portion of the application but requested further submissions on whether the harassment allegations were filed within the statutory time limits.

Rosario Boncori v. TRW Canada Limited, 2008 HRTO 178

Michele Wright

30 cases2008–2021

George H. Cowley

2 cases2005–2008

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2008

Tribunal orders production of dispatch logs and records of other cyclists stopped by involved officers.

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination during a police stop while riding his bicycle, sought production of various documents from the respondent police services board.

The Tribunal ordered the non-party Chief of Police to produce dispatch logs, use of force reports, and records of other cyclists stopped by the involved officers in the week prior to the incident, finding them arguably relevant.

Requests for records of other incidents involving the complainant and general police database searches were dismissed as irrelevant.

Kampe v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 128

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 22, 2008

Parties ordered to attend in-person case management meeting despite respondent's refusal to mediate.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent refused to consent to participate in the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to attend an in-person case management meeting on the date originally scheduled for mediation, finding that the complex issues regarding the duty to accommodate in a publicly funded housing co-operative required in-person case management to ensure the parties understood the legal issues and evidentiary requirements.

Istvan Resz v. Lakeshore Artists Co-operative, 2008 HRTO 94

Sheila MacKinnon

15 cases2008–2024

Prabhu Rajan

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2007–2017

Monmi Goswami

Lee Ann Chapman

Not Practising Law1 case2008–2008

John Bell

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 22, 2008

Tribunal excludes expert evidence on anti-Black racism as irrelevant to 'brown' complainant and denies sweeping publication ban.

In an interim decision during a human rights hearing, the Tribunal ruled on several evidentiary issues.

The Tribunal excluded documents relating to the pre-VRA period and the Commission's investigation report.

The Tribunal refused to admit the expert evidence of Dr. Frances Henry on anti-Black racism, finding it irrelevant because the complainant identified as 'brown' rather than 'Black', and unnecessary to assist the trier of fact.

The Tribunal allowed the respondents to call two police officers to testify about questioning the complainant's brother, finding that the brother's own testimony authorized disclosure under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a sweeping publication ban regarding other students' academic records, noting that the Education Act privilege applies only to Ontario Student Records.

Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 92

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 18, 2008

Tribunal excluded expert evidence on race analysis and set deadline for submitting relevant materials.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario directed that it would not hear the expert evidence of Dr. Frances Henry or the evidence of Sue Eaman.

The Tribunal set a deadline for the Commission or the complainant to submit any relevant materials on race analysis or racism in education, other than caselaw or the Commission's Policy and Guidelines.

Reasons for the decision were to be released shortly.

Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 83

Rosanne Giulietti

15 cases2005–2012

Joanne Mulcahy

21 cases2002–2023

Jerome Wiley, Q.C.

2 cases2008–2008

Christine Elwell

17 cases1986–2012

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 19, 2008

Stay of production order pending judicial review denied; no irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured proceeding.

The affected police officers requested a stay of a Tribunal order requiring the disclosure of documents relating to other complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against them, pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay.

While acknowledging a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal found the officers would not suffer irreparable harm, as the documents would only be disclosed to the Commission and complainant subject to an implied undertaking, and any privacy concerns could be addressed if the documents were later tendered as evidence.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as it would unduly delay a proceeding that had already been ongoing for four years.

The request for a stay was denied.

King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 55

Melanie Shulman

4 cases2008–2008

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 11, 2008

Tribunal awards $5,000 for workplace sexual harassment despite finding complainant's allegations of forced sexual assault unreliable.

The complainant alleged that her former employer and holistic medicine instructor subjected her to years of forced sexual assaults, sexual harassment, and reprisals.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence of forced sexual assault to be unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, implausibilities, and the emergence of repressed memories only during her testimony.

However, the Tribunal found that a sexual relationship did occur during the complainant's employment, which was unwelcome and constituted sexual harassment and improper sexual solicitations under ss. 7(2) and 7(3)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The allegations of gender discrimination and reprisal were dismissed.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages.

Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre, 2008 HRTO 35

Sheena Scott

12 cases2002–2025

Rosanne Giulietti

15 cases2005–2012

Joanne Mulcahy

21 cases2002–2023

Jerome Wiley, Q.C.

2 cases2008–2008

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 4, 2008

Tribunal orders partial production of police records and personnel files prior to Commission filing hearing brief.

The Commission referred a human rights complaint to the Tribunal under s. 33(6) of the Human Rights Code after the respondent police board refused to produce certain documents during the investigation.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation during an arrest and detention.

The Commission brought a motion seeking production of various documents, including officer notes, video logs, personnel files, and arrest statistics, prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Tribunal held that while preliminary matters should generally not be raised before hearing briefs are filed, the specific circumstances warranted severing the disclosure requirement from the hearing brief filing.

The Tribunal ordered the production of arguably relevant documents, including prior complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against the involved officers and relevant video monitoring information, but denied overbroad requests for complete personnel files and statistical data on arrests.

King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 33

Tamara Joseph

3 cases2008–2008

Sheila MacKinnon

15 cases2008–2024

Roger Rowe

35 cases1997–2025

Prabhu Rajan

John Bell

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 15, 2008

Tribunal removes several personal respondents from human rights complaint where corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board and several individuals, the Tribunal considered whether to remove certain personal respondents.

The Commission advised it would not proceed against four individuals, who were subsequently removed.

The Tribunal then analyzed whether to remove a fifth individual, a superintendent, applying factors such as corporate vicarious liability and whether her individual conduct was a central issue.

Finding no compelling reason to keep her as a party and no prejudice in her removal, the Tribunal removed her.

The Tribunal declined to remove a sixth individual whose conduct was central to the allegations.

Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31

Tamara Joseph

3 cases2008–2008

Sheila MacKinnon

15 cases2008–2024

Roger Rowe

35 cases1997–2025

Prabhu Rajan

John Bell

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 1, 2008

Tribunal consolidates main and reprisal human rights complaints and orders bifurcation of hearing.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed the consolidation of complaints and bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Commission lacked the authority to combine a newly referred reprisal complaint with a main complaint already before the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal exercised its own power to consolidate the proceedings to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring personal respondents would not face liability for the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases to expedite the process and provided further case management directions.

Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 28, 2008

Commission's request for an extension to file its hearing brief denied due to insufficient justification and delay.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an extension of time to file its hearing brief and an order for production of documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the extension request, finding that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasons why the requested documents were necessary prior to filing its brief and noted the Commission's delay in bringing the request.

The Commission's hearing brief remained due on the originally scheduled date, while a schedule was set for submissions on the production request.

King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 20

Cathy Pike

55 cases2003–2016

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 27, 2008

Tribunal allows pleading amendments and dismisses motion to quash for delay absent evidence of actual prejudice.

The complainant brought a motion to amend the pleadings in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of timeliness and laches, citing a delay of over ten years for some allegations.

The Tribunal allowed most of the complainant's amendments, finding no actual prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' motion to dismiss for delay, as they failed to provide evidence of actual prejudice, though the delay would be considered in weighing the evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered that the Commission's clarification letter be treated as part of the pleadings rather than a mere guide.

Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16

Sarah Wright

11 cases2003–2014

Robin Basu

7 cases2005–2013

Raj Dhir

39 cases1997–2013

Melanie Warner

8 cases2008–2015

Eric Roher

16 cases2005–2022

Bruce Ellis

25 cases2005–2023

Mark Hart

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 25, 2008

Ministry of Education added as respondent to one student's human rights complaint regarding special education accommodation.

The complainants, two students with disabilities, brought motions to add the Ministry of Education, the Premier, current and former Ministers of Education, Ministry staff, a special education teacher, and a school board trustee as party respondents to their human rights complaints against the school board.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the Ministry of Education (Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario) to the Sigrist complaint, finding a sufficient basis in the Ministry's alleged failure to take timely action to assist the parents in resolving their concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to add the Ministry to the Carson complaint.

The Tribunal also declined to add the individual politicians, Ministry staff, the teacher, and the trustee as personal respondents, noting the corporate respondents' ability to respond to the allegations and provide remedies, and the lack of compelling juridical reasons to add the individuals.

Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al, 2008 HRTO 14

Tamara Joseph

3 cases2008–2008

Sheila M. MacKinnon

1 case2008–2008

Prabhu Rajan

John Bell

Mark Hart