Mary Ross Hendriks

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to withdraw from active participation in the hearing of a human rights complaint, having reached a settlement with the corporate respondent.

The complainant opposed the withdrawal and brought a separate motion to amend her complaint to add grounds of race and racial harassment.

The Tribunal granted the Commission's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of process and that transitional issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal dismissed the complainant's motion to amend, finding the proposed amendment was brought too late, was based on weak hearsay evidence, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent movie theatre chain brought a motion to adjourn the combined hearing of three human rights complaints regarding the lack of captioning in theatres.

The respondent argued the hearing should be delayed until new, related complaints filed by one of the complainants against other major theatre chains were referred to the Tribunal, to ensure an industry-wide resolution.

The complainants and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing prejudice from delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without the other major exhibitors could lead to a multiplicity of proceedings and unfairness, and noted that the complainant herself had generated some of the delay by filing new complaints.

The Tribunal also removed two personal respondents on consent.

The respondents brought a motion on consent to correct the spelling of the corporate and personal respondents' names in the complaint and title of proceeding, and to remove the personal respondent as a party.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, amending the corporate respondent's name to Universal Studios Canada Inc. and removing the personal respondent as a party.

The complainants, who are deaf, alleged that the respondent movie theatre chain failed to provide captioning services.

The respondent brought motions to combine the complaints, adjourn the hearing, and postpone its disclosure obligations, while one complainant brought a motion to amend his complaint to add an allegation of reprisal based on an e-mail sent by the respondent to advocacy groups.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motions, noting the likelihood of related complaints being referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the e-mail did not name the complainant and constituted lobbying rather than a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

Two female employees filed human rights complaints alleging sexual solicitation and harassment by the male co-owner of a variety store.

The adjudicator found that the respondent repeatedly subjected the complainants and other female staff to unwelcome sexual comments, physical touching, and propositions, creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's denials and conspiracy theories were rejected as implausible, while the complainants' evidence was found credible and corroborated by similar fact evidence from other former employees.

The tribunal held the respondent and the partnership jointly and severally liable, awarding general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and ordering public interest remedies including human rights training.

The complainant, a young black woman, was employed as a receptionist by the respondent physiotherapist.

She alleged that the respondent subjected her to ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including unwanted physical contact, racial slurs, and exposure to pornography.

When she repeatedly rejected his advances and formally asked him to stop, he refused to give her a promised raise and ultimately terminated her employment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct created a poisoned work environment and constituted intersectional discrimination based on both race and sex.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $3,384 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement anti-discrimination policies and undergo training.

Five female complainants alleged that the respondent, operating as Patrons Online, subjected them to sexual solicitation and harassment during job interviews and subsequent employment.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent abused his position of power to sexually harass the complainants, asking inappropriate personal questions, demanding dates, and in one case, luring a complainant to his residence.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent retaliated against three complainants by terminating their employment when they rejected his advances, and threatened another with a lawsuit for attempting to complain.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for loss of income to the complainants, and ordered public interest remedies including the implementation of a workplace harassment policy.

Counsel for the respondent brought a motion to be removed from the record after losing contact with his client.

The respondent had apparently abandoned his business and left the country permanently.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that counsel had made all reasonable efforts to locate his client.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing on the merits would proceed as scheduled, as the respondent was on notice of the dates.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainants brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Thunder Bay to Atikokan, Ontario, as all participants and witnesses resided there.

The respondents consented to the venue change.

The respondents also requested an extension to file their pleadings and make disclosure, having missed two previous deadlines due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the venue change based on the balance of convenience and granted the respondents a final, peremptory extension to file their pleadings.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to compel the Respondent to produce certain documents over which the Respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal first determined that the Respondent's description of the documents was insufficient to establish privilege and ordered the documents to be produced for inspection by the Tribunal.

After inspecting the documents, the majority of the Tribunal found that legal advice privilege attached to some of the documents, as they were part of the continuum of communication between government officials and legal counsel regarding the de-listing of sex re-assignment surgery.

However, the Tribunal ordered the production of other documents or portions thereof where privilege was not established or had been waived.

A partial dissent would have ordered full production of two specific documents, finding that privilege had been waived.

The complainant A.B. brought an urgent motion for an interim partial publication ban to protect their identity in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the termination of OHIP-funded services for gender transformation.

The Tribunal applied the Dagenais test and found that a partial publication ban was a reasonable alternate means to protect the complainant's privacy rights while limiting the expression rights of third parties as little as possible.

The motion was granted on an interim basis.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend several complaints to correct misnomers regarding the respondent's name and business aliases, and to add the ground of reprisal to one of the complaints.

The respondent did not attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the respondent would suffer no prejudice from the correction of misnomers and that the reprisal allegations were already set out in the original complaint and statement of facts.

The Complainant, an 18-year-old co-op student, alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the Personal Respondent, an owner of the hotel where she worked.

The Tribunal found that the Personal Respondent repeatedly sexually harassed the Complainant and other female staff, creating a poisoned work environment.

When the Complainant rejected his advances and complained to the General Manager, the Personal Respondent demanded the General Manager find a pretext to fire her.

When the General Manager refused and resigned, the Personal Respondent terminated the Complainant.

The Tribunal held the Personal and Corporate Respondents jointly and severally liable for breaches of the Human Rights Code, awarding general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion seeking orders for the respondents to serve and file their pleadings, provide full disclosure including specific personnel records, and allow a witness residing in British Columbia to testify by conference call.

The respondents acknowledged their delay and requested a short indulgence.

The Board of Inquiry granted the Commission's motion, ordering the respondents to file their responses and make full production by a specified date, and permitted the out-of-province witness to testify by conference call subject to certain conditions.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion seeking orders for the respondents to serve and file their pleadings, provide full disclosure including the complainant's personnel file and a witness's resignation letter, and to allow a witness to testify by conference call.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion, ordering the respondents to file their responses and make full production by October 7, 2002.

The Board also permitted the witness to testify by conference call subject to specific conditions regarding exhibits and contact.

The Commission and the complainant requested an extension of the 18-month period during which the Board remained seized of the matter for implementation of its remedial orders.

The orders had been automatically stayed for 19 weeks due to the respondents' unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Board found that the doctrine of functus officio did not prevent it from extending the time to compensate for the statutory stay.

To prevent irreparable harm to the complainant, the Board granted a 19-week extension, but denied the request for an additional six-month extension.