Ruth Hartman

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing weekly income benefits, claiming an inability to perform his pre-accident duties as a health care aide due to back pain.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and the physical demands of the occupation, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, which were later terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought arbitration for weekly income benefits under section 12 or, alternatively, section 13 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant, a 71-year-old retiree who occasionally took odd jobs, was not employed, self-employed, or unemployed within the meaning of section 12 at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks under section 13.

The insurer was awarded repayment of $8,606 in overpaid benefits, while the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.

Following a preliminary decision that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to hear the human rights complaints due to the Commission's failure to fulfill a condition precedent, the respondent Four Star Variety brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The majority of the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs because the complaints were not 'dismissed' within the strict meaning of the Code.

The motion for costs was denied.

A dissenting member would have found jurisdiction to award costs but denied them on the basis that the respondent suffered no undue hardship, as its legal fees were paid by a third party.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.

However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.