Mary Ross Hendriks

The complainant, a bartender, alleged she was discriminated against and terminated because of her pregnancy.

After disclosing her pregnancy, she faced repeated questioning about her intentions to continue working, pressure to switch to less lucrative shifts, and negative comments from management.

She was subsequently terminated under the pretext of a false accusation of theft.

The corporate respondent's owner failed to investigate her internal complaint of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the respondents violated the Human Rights Code by discriminating against the complainant on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

The respondents were ordered to pay general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages, tips, and maternity/parental benefits.

The complainant, a receptionist at an insurance brokerage, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and required two surgeries.

She informed her employer of her diagnosis and provided medical notes indicating she needed a six-week recovery period.

While she was recovering, the employer hired a permanent replacement.

When the complainant returned to work, she was terminated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer failed to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship and unlawfully terminated her employment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $20,000 in general damages for loss of dignity and mental anguish, $3,006.40 in special damages for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training.

The complainant, a restaurant employee, alleged that a co-worker sexually harassed her by deliberately flicking her breast.

She reported the incident to management, who conducted an investigation.

The Tribunal found that the single incident constituted sexual harassment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the employer's investigation was seriously flawed and unreasonable, and that management engaged in reprisal against the complainant after she asserted her legal rights, ultimately leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages against the co-worker and the employer, as well as special damages for lost wages against the employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion for production of financial documents and documents relating to digital projectors from several respondent movie theatre companies.

The respondents had raised the defence of undue hardship regarding the accommodation of deaf patrons through captioning.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the respondents to produce consolidated and unconsolidated financial statements, tax returns, and certain bankruptcy and merger documents, finding them arguably relevant to assessing the defence of undue hardship.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their motion for the production of a closed Commission file.

The respondents argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction to vary its interim procedural decision.

The Tribunal assumed, without deciding, that it might have common law jurisdiction to reconsider an interim decision, but found that none of the common law criteria for reconsideration were met.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion for the production of the entire contents of a closed Ontario Human Rights Commission file pertaining to a separate complaint made by the complainant against a different contractor.

The Commission had previously decided not to refer that complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to order the production of a closed, unreferred file.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the information in the closed file met the Wigmore test for privilege and ought to remain confidential to protect the integrity of the Commission's investigation and settlement processes.

The complainant alleged that her membership in the respondent association was terminated because she practices Falun Gong.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that Falun Gong constitutes a creed within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the respondents wilfully and intentionally discriminated against the complainant in the provision of services based on her creed.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $10,000 in general damages and $8,000 for mental anguish, and to implement anti-discrimination policies.

The complainants alleged that Ontario discriminated against them on the basis of sex and disability by de-listing sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal found that Gender Identity Disorder is a disability and that the de-listing had a disproportionate adverse impact on three of the complainants who had already begun their transition program at the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic.

The Tribunal ordered Ontario to fund the surgery for these three complainants as an interim remedy, finding that the grandparenting provision in the amending regulation was not a reasonable accommodation.

The Tribunal heard several procedural motions regarding the examination of witnesses and disclosure of documents following an order permitting the Commission to amend the complaint to include allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal provided specific directions on which party would lead the examination of various witnesses, including union employees, police officers, and contractors.

The Tribunal also ordered that all documents related to the reprisal allegations be disclosed forthwith, ruled that undisclosed documents could not be introduced during cross-examination, required privileged documents to be categorized, and determined that new allegations raised in testimony would only be considered for credibility purposes.

The corporate respondent brought a motion seeking production of the complainant's clinical notes and records regarding her mental and psychological stability, arguing her erratic behaviour went to her credibility.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no nexus between the sexual harassment and reprisal complaint and the requested medical records.

The complainant had not put her psychological state in issue, making the records irrelevant.

The Tribunal noted that credibility and reliability of testimony would be assessed in the normal course without granting a fishing licence into the complainant's private life.

The complainant, a customer sales representative, was struck by a vehicle during her lunch break and suffered injuries.

She provided her employer with a doctor's note stating she could not return to work until further notice.

The employer, frustrated by staff shortages, demanded she attend a meeting shortly after the accident, during which her manager diminished her work and acted hostile.

The employer subsequently terminated her employment without seeking further medical information.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer failed to accommodate her disability and recklessly terminated her, causing mental anguish.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages and mental anguish, plus $301.50 in special damages for lost wages.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged discrimination and harassment based on race, colour, and disability by his former employer and its directing mind.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had quit his employment prior to a car accident, dismissing the disability claim.

However, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent uttered a racial slur to the complainant when he returned his tools, violating s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the corporate respondent deliberately withheld the complainant's final paperwork and part of his earnings, constituting racial harassment under s. 5(2).

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $7,000 in general damages and mental anguish, and to complete human rights training.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the Tribunal proceed by way of a written hearing to determine the merits of a complaint alleging discrimination based on creed (Falun Gong).

The respondents had failed to participate in the proceedings, including missing conference calls and failing to file pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that a written hearing would balance natural justice with procedural efficiency, and issued a Notice of Written Hearing giving the respondents a final opportunity to object.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion seeking an order that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to find that section 2(9) of the respondent's Operating Agreement violates the Human Rights Code, based on a prior Court of Appeal decision regarding interjurisdictional immunity.

The complainant opposed the motion, arguing that all evidence should be heard before determining jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding that it must fully understand the Operating Agreement and hear from all witnesses before deciding whether the Code applies and should be read down.

During a hearing on the merits of a human rights complaint, the complainant testified that his income had declined due to alleged reprisals by the respondents.

The respondents brought a motion seeking an order directing the complainant to produce his tax returns and authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to release his tax records from 1995 to 2004.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the tax records were arguably relevant to the complainant's allegations of improper interference with his ability to earn an income, and ordered the complainant to execute the necessary authorization and produce his 2004 tax return.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The complainant, a Native single mother, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on ancestry and family status when she attempted to rent an apartment.

The adjudicator found that the respondent landlord made derogatory comments about Native people and refused to accept her deposit after learning she was Native and a single mother.

The tribunal held that the respondents violated the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $9,000 in general damages and $100 in special damages, and to undergo human rights training.

The respondent City of Toronto brought motions seeking production of the complainant's medical records, related correspondence, income information, and an order compelling the complainant to undergo a physical examination of his knee by a doctor of the respondent's choosing.

The Tribunal granted the motions for production of the medical records, correspondence, and income information, finding they met the threshold of arguable relevance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for a physical examination, holding that unlike the courts, it lacks the express statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to order a party to submit to a medical examination without their consent.

The Police Association of Ontario, Peel Regional Police Association, and Ontario Provincial Police Association Inc. brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the Tribunal in a human rights complaint regarding the strip-searching of transsexuals.

The Commission opposed the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the associations had a special contribution to make regarding occupational health and safety risks and potential gender-based discrimination affecting their members.

The intervention was limited to written submissions on the existing record.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed medical records produced by the complainant's treating physicians following a prior order.

The Tribunal determined that the documents were relevant to the proceedings, that their disclosure would not unduly breach the complainant's privacy, and ordered that the records be produced to all parties in their entirety.