Matthew D. Garfield

The respondent, Dofasco Inc., sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was made in bad faith and that the Commission acted irresponsibly in its post-referral conduct.

The Tribunal also found that the long-term disability allegation, which was dismissed as an abuse of process, caused undue hardship to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to pay $210,000 in costs to the respondent pursuant to subsection 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

Prior to the hearing, the complainant passed away intestate, and no estate trustee was appointed.

The respondents argued that the proceeding could not continue without an appointed estate trustee.

The Tribunal held that it has the jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing despite the complainant's death and the absence of an estate trustee, noting that the Commission is a separate party with carriage of the complaint and a mandate to advocate for the public interest.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to add Allan Brandston as a personal respondent to a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate the complainant's creed regarding a condominium Sabbath elevator.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Payne, finding there was reliable evidence on the record that could lead to a finding of liability against Mr. Brandston, and that he would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that a personal respondent should not be added when a corporate respondent is already a party, noting that the Code's provisions for adding parties do not restrict their application to corporate respondents.

In the remedial phase of a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at Famous Players theatres, the Tribunal considered whether to lift a non-admittance policy for wheelchair users at the Uptown theatre pending its closure.

The Tribunal found it was functus officio regarding ordering interim renovations or extending the closure date.

However, the Tribunal ruled that the blanket ban on manual wheelchair users was an unjustified safety measure.

The Tribunal ordered the ban revoked subject to specific conditions, including limiting the number of wheelchair users per auditorium and requiring an implementation plan, while maintaining the ban for power wheelchairs and scooters due to evacuation risks.

Alicia Payne, a Black woman, was hired through an employment agency to work as a booth receptionist for Otsuka Pharmaceutical at an international conference organized by Intertask and the Canadian Ophthalmological Society.

When she arrived, Otsuka's representative rejected her, stating he wanted "other girls please" and expressing concern about the "company's image".

The Board found that the representative discriminated against the complainant because she is Black.

The Board also found that the conference organizers had a duty not to condone or further the discrimination.

By conducting an inadequate investigation, unreasonably concluding it was a "misunderstanding", and assisting the representative in finding a replacement, they breached this duty.

The Board awarded general and mental anguish damages against all respondents, along with public interest remedies.

Following a finding of liability for discrimination based on disability and reprisal, the Board of Inquiry determined the appropriate remedies.

The complainant, an independent contractor who was terminated after being diagnosed with ALS and falsely accused of theft, was awarded $20,000 for the infringement of his right to contract, $12,415 in special damages, and $20,000 for reprisal.

The Board declined to award legal costs, finding no statutory authority to do so under the Human Rights Code in these circumstances, and declined to order public interest remedies.

The complainant, an independent contractor diagnosed with ALS, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents treated the complainant differently due to his deteriorating health, including reducing his hours and removing his telephone.

The respondents terminated his contract, ostensibly for stealing propane, but the Board found they were wilfully blind to a plausible explanation because they wanted to terminate him due to his disability.

The Board also found the respondents committed reprisal by threatening criminal prosecution and initiating a Small Claims Court action against the complainant after he filed his human rights complaint.

The parties were given time to mediate a remedy.

The complainant brought a motion to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The Board of Inquiry considered whether it 'appeared' that the prospective respondents infringed the complainant's rights under the Human Rights Code and whether adding them would cause substantial prejudice.

The Board added the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, Intertask Group of Companies, and Leanne Akehurst as party respondents, finding a sufficient nexus to the alleged discrimination.

The Board declined to add the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Hubert Drouin, and Paul Akehurst due to a lack of evidence of their involvement.

The Board also declined to add Manpower Services Canada Limited, finding that the five-year delay in providing notice caused substantial prejudice to its ability to mount a full defence.

The complainant's arguments regarding the Commission's pre-referral conduct and constitutional violations were dismissed as being outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The respondent employer brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap, arguing that the complainant's receipt of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits estopped her from claiming she was capable of working.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the abuse of process motion, finding that the issues and parties before the CPP adjudicative structure were not the same as those before the Board, and thus issue estoppel did not apply.

The respondent also moved to strike portions of the Commission's amended pleading.

The Board granted this motion in part, striking allegations that fell outside the specific subject-matter of the individual complaint, while noting that similar fact evidence might still be admissible if relevant and probative.

The respondent in a sexual harassment complaint brought a motion for further production of the complainant's business and medical records.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the production of the complainant's business records, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of damages and mitigation, with their probative value outweighing privacy concerns.

However, the Board declined to order the production of the complainant's pre-existing medical and psychiatric records, finding them not arguably relevant and noting that assuming a person with a psychiatric history is less credible would be highly prejudicial and stereotypical.

The complainant purchased a used car from the respondent and subsequently sought repairs for alleged defects.

During interactions regarding the repairs, the respondent directed severe racial slurs at the complainant.

The Board of Inquiry found that while there was insufficient evidence to prove the respondent failed in his obligations regarding the car's mechanical condition, the use of racial slurs constituted discrimination in the provision of services contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board declined to read a protection against harassment in services into the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,500 for the infringement of rights and $500 for mental anguish.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a human rights complaint to add three new allegations of harassment in employment and the ground of reprisal.

The respondent, Dofasco Inc., opposed the motion, arguing that the Commission's failure to investigate or conciliate these allegations prior to referral deprived it of statutory protections and that the late notice caused prejudice amounting to an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion, holding that it has jurisdiction to hear a matter de novo and amend complaints, provided natural justice is respected.

The Board found that Dofasco failed to demonstrate actual prejudice of such magnitude as to impact the fairness of the hearing, noting that Dofasco would have ample time to prepare its defence before the hearing on the merits commenced.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a human rights complaint to add three new allegations of harassment and the ground of reprisal.

The respondent, Dofasco Inc., opposed the motion, arguing that the late notice of the new allegations caused prejudice amounting to an abuse of process and a denial of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion, finding that the Board has the jurisdiction to amend a complaint and that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual prejudice of such magnitude as to impact the fairness of the hearing.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint, arguing that a four-year delay by the Commission and the existence of multiple proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a violation of their section 7 Charter rights.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that section 7 of the Charter does not apply to human rights proceedings.

The Board also held that the respondents failed to demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay, as their claims regarding unavailable witnesses and lost documents were speculative.

Furthermore, the complainant was entitled to pursue her rights in multiple forums, which did not constitute an abuse of process.

The complainant, who uses a wheelchair due to muscular dystrophy, alleged that the respondent movie theatre discriminated against him by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible facilities.

The theatre required him to enter through a back door and sit in the aisle, which was uncomfortable and undignified.

The Board of Inquiry found that the theatre discriminated against the complainant and failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The respondents were ordered to pay $3,000 in damages and to implement a phased renovation plan costing up to $60,000 to make the theatre accessible.

Dofasco brought a motion for the production of the complainant's medical files, WSIB file, CPP file, and income tax returns in a human rights proceeding.

The Commission opposed the motion, arguing it was overly broad and a fishing expedition.

The adjudicator granted the motion in part, finding that the documents were arguably relevant to Dofasco's accommodation defence under section 17 of the Code and to the quantum of damages.

The complainant was ordered to provide consents for the release of the requested files and to produce edited income tax returns.

The complainant brought a preliminary motion before the Board of Inquiry to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint against only two respondents, explicitly declining to refer it against the others.

The complainant argued the Board had jurisdiction to add the remaining respondents under s. 39(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to add respondents where the Commission had already considered and expressly decided not to refer the complaint against them.

The Board held that reviewing the Commission's referral decision falls within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.