The respondent City brought a motion to dismiss the human rights complaint for lack of evidence at the close of the Commission's case.
The immediate issue was whether the City was required to elect whether it intended to call evidence before the motion could be heard.
The adjudicator departed from the normal civil court practice of requiring an election, finding that the potential prejudice to the City in requiring an election was far greater than the potential prejudice to the Commission, given the extensive evidence already heard and the onerous nature of defending against an adverse effect discrimination claim.
