Amyn Hadibhai

The complainant, who is visually impaired, brought a human rights complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for failing to announce all surface transit stops.

Following an interim decision finding the TTC in breach of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal issued final remedies.

The Tribunal ordered the TTC to implement automated stop announcements with a 98% reliability rate, conduct extensive training for staff and management, hold annual public forums on accessibility, and pay $35,000 in damages to the complainant.

The complainant, who is blind, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) discriminated against him and other visually impaired persons by failing to consistently announce all streetcar and bus stops.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the failure to announce all stops constituted a prima facie breach of the Human Rights Code.

The TTC argued that requiring drivers to announce all stops would cause undue hardship due to safety concerns, but the Tribunal rejected this defence, noting the lack of expert evidence and the fact that drivers already announce stops in inclement weather.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requiring the TTC to implement a program to clearly and consistently announce all surface stops within 30 days.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with his discrimination complaint.

The applicant had resigned pursuant to an agreement to withdraw disciplinary charges, but filed a human rights complaint after failing to secure employment with another police force and being denied reinstatement.

The Commission dismissed the complaint as vexatious under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable given the applicant's extensive disciplinary record and the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

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 appellant filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination by his former employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to a board of inquiry under s. 36 of the Human Rights Code because the employer had made an adequate settlement offer, which the appellant refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Commission was entitled to consider the settlement offer, which was not privileged against the Commission, and that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Commission and the Complainant sought the appointment of a monitor to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's previous interim order requiring the respondent transit commission to provide reliable accommodation.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing it was an improper delegation of authority.

The Tribunal found that a monitor was necessary to expedite the interim order and appointed a former Chair of the Tribunal as Monitor, with authority to deal with the parties and oversee the planning of educational seminars and audits.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The respondents brought a motion requesting the Adjudicator to review his own earlier decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to review its own decision under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Procedures Act because the rules under section 25(1) do not deal with the matter.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the order sought, as the motion was brought too late in the proceeding after the complainant and the Commission had closed their case.

The respondent, Kimberly-Clark Inc., brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had disclosed that he was acting as a non-witness consultant for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Manulife Financial, a company that provided services to the respondent and whose actions were implicated in the human rights complaint.

The adjudicator granted the recusal motion, finding that his inability to provide full details of his consulting arrangement due to solicitor-client privilege, combined with the potential need to rule on Manulife's status in the proceedings, established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent's request for an order directing the appointment of a specific type of substitute adjudicator was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent movie theatre chain brought a motion to adjourn the combined hearing of three human rights complaints regarding the lack of captioning in theatres.

The respondent argued the hearing should be delayed until new, related complaints filed by one of the complainants against other major theatre chains were referred to the Tribunal, to ensure an industry-wide resolution.

The complainants and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing prejudice from delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without the other major exhibitors could lead to a multiplicity of proceedings and unfairness, and noted that the complainant herself had generated some of the delay by filing new complaints.

The Tribunal also removed two personal respondents on consent.

The respondents brought a motion on consent to correct the spelling of the corporate and personal respondents' names in the complaint and title of proceeding, and to remove the personal respondent as a party.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, amending the corporate respondent's name to Universal Studios Canada Inc. and removing the personal respondent as a party.

The complainants, who are deaf, alleged that the respondent movie theatre chain failed to provide captioning services.

The respondent brought motions to combine the complaints, adjourn the hearing, and postpone its disclosure obligations, while one complainant brought a motion to amend his complaint to add an allegation of reprisal based on an e-mail sent by the respondent to advocacy groups.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motions, noting the likelihood of related complaints being referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the e-mail did not name the complainant and constituted lobbying rather than a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that his landlords, a brother and sister, subjected him to severe racial harassment and discrimination over a period of years, culminating in his eviction.

The respondents repeatedly used racial slurs and made false accusations against him.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct constituted harassment and created a poisoned environment in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $415 in special damages, and the surviving respondent was ordered to attend anti-discrimination training and implement a human rights policy.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission had declined the referral because the employer had made a reasonable settlement offer that matched what the applicant could expect at a hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission was correct to consider the settlement offer in exercising its gatekeeper function under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his discrimination complaint against a university to a board of inquiry.

He also sought $55 million in damages against the university.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable as it had investigated the complaint and based its decision on evidence of the applicant's academic and financial issues.

The court also held it lacks jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.

The applicant, an African-Canadian male, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his complaint against the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to a board of inquiry.

The applicant alleged that the law school's reliance on LSAT scores for admission constituted systemic discrimination against African-Canadians.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable, as it had considered extensive evidence showing the law school used a holistic admissions policy rather than strict numerical cut-offs.

The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, sought access to his son's medical records through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of family or marital status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to usurp the Family Court's role in determining parental access rights.

The court found no discrimination and upheld the tribunal's procedural fairness, awarding $1,000 in costs to the Commission.

The complainant, who has a physical disability, agreed to rent the main floor of the respondent's home.

The respondent agreed to build a ramp and railing to accommodate her disability.

Before the move-in date, the respondent failed to complete the ramp and effectively terminated the rental agreement, citing the need to finish basement renovations first.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions amounted to a refusal to accommodate the complainant's disability, violating her right to equal treatment in the occupancy of accommodation.

The respondent was ordered to pay special damages for lost deposits and moving expenses, as well as general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination.

The Complainant, an 18-year-old co-op student, alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the Personal Respondent, an owner of the hotel where she worked.

The Tribunal found that the Personal Respondent repeatedly sexually harassed the Complainant and other female staff, creating a poisoned work environment.

When the Complainant rejected his advances and complained to the General Manager, the Personal Respondent demanded the General Manager find a pretext to fire her.

When the General Manager refused and resigned, the Personal Respondent terminated the Complainant.

The Tribunal held the Personal and Corporate Respondents jointly and severally liable for breaches of the Human Rights Code, awarding general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages.