Michael Gottheil

The Commission initiated a complaint alleging a breach of settlement by the respondents.

Ms. Glover, the complainant in the original settled matter, brought a motion seeking to be added as a party complainant, to add the Commission as a respondent, and for other relief due to the Commission's alleged failure to enforce the settlement.

The Tribunal declined to entertain the requests directed at the Commission's conduct, noting its focus is on determining the breach of settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction to add Ms. Glover as a complainant or to award monetary remedies to her as an intervenor.

The complainant brought a motion to add her former employer, 621509 Ontario Inc. o/a Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep, as a respondent to her human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint only against the complainant's supervisor.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a party and found that the complaint alleged facts which, if true, could support a finding of liability against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also found that the corporate respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice, as it had participated in the Commission's investigation.

The motion was granted and the corporate respondent was added.

The Tribunal issued a final decision disposing of a human rights complaint based on a settlement reached between the parties on March 1, 2006.

In an earlier decision, the Tribunal found the settlement to be final and binding, subject to any submissions from the parties.

As no submissions were received by the deadline, the Tribunal confirmed the settlement and disposed of the complaint accordingly.

The Commission and the Complainant sought to rescind an order disposing of a human rights complaint, arguing it was issued in error before the Respondents had fully complied with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal rescinded the order, finding there was no valid consent to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

However, the Tribunal found the settlement agreement remained binding under section 43 of the Human Rights Code and declined to add a new respondent, issue an interim compliance order, or award legal expenses, noting that enforcement mechanisms were available elsewhere.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability.

The complainant's job offer for a safety-sensitive position was withdrawn after he tested positive for marijuana during a pre-employment drug test.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the offer was withdrawn due to dishonesty, not disability, and that marijuana use without disability is not protected.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support a claim of discrimination based on perceived disability and that the dispute over the reason for the withdrawal required a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also declined to restrict the scope of the inquiry solely to the marijuana elements of the drug testing policy.

The respondents brought a motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the Commission's pleadings relating to claims for unpaid overtime and vacation pay.

The respondents argued that these claims were raised for the first time more than three years after the complaint was filed, causing prejudice to their ability to defend against them.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the delay impaired the respondents' ability to answer the allegations and that it would be a breach of natural justice to require them to defend the claims.

The motion was granted and the impugned paragraphs were struck.

The complainant suffered a minor workplace injury and was advised by her doctor to take three days off work.

The respondents terminated her employment, stating they could not afford to have an employee off sick.

The respondents failed to participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the termination constituted discrimination on the basis of disability under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate and personal respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay general and special damages.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, a senior managerial employee, subjected her to a pattern of sexual harassment and discrimination over a two-year period.

The respondent failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included unwelcome touching, leering, and inappropriate comments, constituted gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages and expenses, and ordered the respondent to attend human rights training.

The respondents brought a motion seeking further particulars and an order striking certain paragraphs of the Commission's pleadings in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding that under the Tribunal's Rules, the respondents ought to have filed their pleadings and made disclosure prior to bringing preliminary objections.

The Tribunal directed the parties to complete the pleading and disclosure process before raising further preliminary issues.

The corporate respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the pleadings filed by the Commission and the complainant.

The respondent argued that allegations relating to events after the date of the original complaint, allegations not raised in the original complaint, and allegations in the complainant's pleadings that contradicted or added to the Commission's pleadings should be struck.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned material facts formed part of the continuum of events of the complaint, and that the complainant has independent party status under the Code to file her own pleadings.

The Commission requested that the Tribunal proceed by way of written hearing and waive the requirement to file pleadings and provide disclosure, as the respondents had failed to participate in the Initial Conference Call or the Commission's investigation.

The Tribunal ordered that a Notice of Written Hearing be issued, allowing the respondents an opportunity to object.

However, the Tribunal declined to waive the requirement for pleadings and disclosure, emphasizing that the referral commences a de novo statutory adjudication process and the respondents are entitled to know the case to be met and the remedies sought before making submissions on whether a written hearing is appropriate.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that a human rights complaint be disposed of by way of a written hearing after the respondent failed to participate in the initial conference call or file pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that while the Human Rights Code requires a hearing, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits written hearings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Written Hearing, providing the respondent an opportunity to object and setting out the evidentiary requirements for an undefended written hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted the Commission's request on consent to withdraw the complaint against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal also ruled that the Commission's constitutional challenge to section 20(3) of the Human Rights Code would not be determined as a preliminary matter, but would be addressed after the hearing on the merits if necessary.

Hearing dates were scheduled.

The respondent in a human rights complaint sought to bring preliminary motions to strike out portions of the pleadings and to require notice to a third party, Manulife Financial.

Following a prehearing conference, the Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the exchange of motion materials and the hearing of the motions.

The Tribunal also ordered that Manulife Financial be provided with notice of the proceedings and copies of the relevant materials, allowing it an opportunity to seek status to participate in the motions.