T. Brettel Dawson

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.

The complainant, a respiratory technologist, alleged that her employer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of her handicap (pancreas divisum), which caused unpredictable and extensive absences from work.

The employer ultimately refused her request for an indefinite leave of absence and accepted her resignation.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed preliminary motions regarding delay and disclosure.

On the merits, the Board found no harassment, as the employer's actions were legitimate management responses to the absenteeism.

While a prima facie case of discrimination was established because the handicap factored into the end of her employment, the Board concluded that the complainant was incapable of performing the essential duties of her position due to her unpredictable absences.

The employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate, as further accommodation (such as an indefinite leave with no medical plan) would not have enabled her to perform the work and would have caused undue hardship.

The individual respondent brought a preliminary motion to stay human rights proceedings against him, arguing that an extensive delay by the Commission infringed his rights under s. 7 of the Charter and breached the principles of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that s. 7 of the Charter does not apply to remedial human rights proceedings because neither the potential consequences nor the nature of the proceedings jeopardize the liberty or security interests of the respondent.

The Board also found no actual prejudice to the respondent's ability to mount a full answer and defence, and no procedural unfairness amounting to a breach of natural justice.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.