Mark J. Sandler

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation.

After several pre-hearing motions, the complainant's counsel was removed from the record and the complainant could not be located.

The Commission brought a motion to dispose of the complaint.

The respondent sought an order dismissing the complaint and awarding costs against the Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but declined to award costs, finding no evidence that the Commission acted improperly or that the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether a witness located in Nunavut should testify by video or telephone conferencing.

The Commission provided evidence that video conferencing would cost at least $1,895 and its technical compatibility could not be guaranteed without testing.

The Tribunal found that the substantial costs and uncertainties made video conferencing reasonably impracticable.

The Tribunal ordered that the witness be permitted to testify by telephone conferencing.

The moving party brought a preliminary motion, supported by the complainant, to allow a witness residing in Nunavut to testify by telephone conference call.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that the witness's credibility was in issue and that her evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the responding party would not be significantly prejudiced by the electronic taking of evidence, given the high costs and disruption of requiring the witness to travel to Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the evidence be taken by video conference if reasonably practicable, or otherwise by telephone.

The complainant, who has a physical disability, agreed to rent the main floor of the respondent's home.

The respondent agreed to build a ramp and railing to accommodate her disability.

Before the move-in date, the respondent failed to complete the ramp and effectively terminated the rental agreement, citing the need to finish basement renovations first.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions amounted to a refusal to accommodate the complainant's disability, violating her right to equal treatment in the occupancy of accommodation.

The respondent was ordered to pay special damages for lost deposits and moving expenses, as well as general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination.