Patricia E. DeGuire

The complainant, a child with autism, brought a motion before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking interim injunctive relief to reinstate funding for his intensive behavioural intervention therapy.

Concurrently, the complainant and others obtained an interim interim mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice reinstating the same funding pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought was identical to that granted by the Court.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the factual underpinning for the urgency and irreparable harm no longer existed, and declined to decide the abstract question of its jurisdiction to grant such relief.

The Applicant employer brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a pay equity complaint on the basis that the Respondents were former employees when they filed the complaint.

The Applicant also sought a determination that the Respondents should present their case first and bear the onus of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant voluntarily requested a hearing under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal further held that the Respondents' statutory rights under the Act survived the termination of their employment.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicant must proceed first and bears the onus of proof, as it is the party challenging the Review Officer's order.

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The complainant in a sexual harassment case brought a motion for a partial publication ban to protect her identity and that of her same-sex partner.

The complainant argued that disclosure would cause her significant anxiety and embarrassment, and that her family was unaware of her same-sex relationship.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission supported the motion, while the respondents did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the complainant's dignity and privacy interests outweighed the public interest in full disclosure, and that a partial ban would not impede the respondents' right to a fair hearing.

The Commission brought a motion during a pre-hearing conference to amend the complaint by correcting the personal respondent's name to Richard Hetherington and adding his corporation, Richland Marketing Inc., as a corporate respondent.

The respondents did not appear despite being served.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was the directing mind of the corporation and that adding the corporation would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion to amend the name, add the corporate respondent, and ordered substituted service due to the respondents evading service.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

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 Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion for an order directing the Ontario Human Rights Commission to provide particulars concerning the allegations against each respondent, or alternatively to strike unparticularized parts of the complaint.

The Tribunal granted the motion, emphasizing the respondents' right to know the case to be met and the importance of complete information in human rights proceedings.

The Commission was ordered to provide specific particulars, identify the exact allegations against each respondent, specify the sections of the Human Rights Code allegedly infringed, and identify where in the disclosure documents the requested particulars could be found.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The applicant requested, with the consent of the respondent, that the matter be adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a party requests it be scheduled for a hearing.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The corporate respondent brought a motion to exclude hearsay evidence relating to comments allegedly made by its employee to the complainant's deceased stepfather.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding the evidence admissible under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and as an exception to the hearsay rule based on necessity and reliability.

The deceased's statements to the Commission's intake worker and investigator were deemed sufficiently reliable to be admitted, with their weight to be determined at the hearing on the merits.

The corporate respondent brought a motion to exclude evidence relating to comments allegedly made by its employee to the complainant's deceased stepfather.

The respondent argued the evidence was hearsay and unreliable.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding the evidence admissible under s. 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and as a principled exception to the hearsay rule, given its necessity and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

The corporate respondents brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents and information from the complainants and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or alternatively, an order striking the complaint.

The Board of Inquiry noted that the hearing on the merits had been bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.

Consequently, the Board ordered disclosure only of documents relating to the liability aspect of the proceedings at this juncture, specifically information concerning the diagnoses of four youths and details regarding the complainants' bankruptcies to establish their entitlement to any potential award.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.