Anthony Griffin

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a First Nations constable, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing his complaint that his suspension and termination by the OPP Commissioner were discriminatory and acts of reprisal.

The applicant had been terminated after making public comments criticizing the OPP.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the exclusion of First Nations constables from the procedural protections of the Police Services Act was not discriminatory, but rather respected First Nations self-government.

The Court also upheld the finding that the termination was not a reprisal under the Human Rights Code, as the applicant's public comments were not an assertion of human rights.

A related application by the First Nation Council alleging a denial of natural justice was also dismissed.

The complainant requested that the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision be corrected to reflect a legal name change that occurred before the decision was issued.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was out of time and the Tribunal lacked authority.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it had the power under section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct errors similar to typographical errors at any time, and alternatively, the power to correct an error made in expressing its manifest intention.

Two students with ADHD and learning disabilities alleged that the respondent school board failed to properly accommodate their disability-related needs.

For the first student, the Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence that half-day attendance or specific resource withdrawal was required, and concluded the school had provided appropriate accommodations.

For the second student, the Tribunal found that the school had consistently provided organizational assistance and that a delay in trialing specific adaptive technology did not amount to a denial of accommodation.

Both complaints were dismissed.

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it was an abuse of process to relitigate the delisting of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) as an insured service.

The original decision applied the ruling in Hogan, which denied accommodation to individuals who began transitioning after SRS was delisted.

The complainant argued the decision was factually inaccurate, inconsistent with Hogan, and contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the complainant commenced her transition after the delisting and was therefore not entitled to accommodation under Hogan.

The Tribunal also held that relitigating the issue on the same evidence and legal theory was an abuse of process.

The complainants challenged the 1998 delisting of sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal previously ruled on this exact issue in Hogan v. Ontario, finding the delisting was not discriminatory but the grandparenting provision failed to accommodate those already transitioning.

The Commission and complainants sought to relitigate the delisting issue using the same evidence and legal theory as in Hogan.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints as an abuse of process, holding that attempting to reargue the same case before a different panel to obtain a contrary result violates principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The complainant, a Falun Gong practitioner, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services because of her creed by making discriminatory comments and excluding her from membership in the Ottawa Chinese Senior Association.

The Tribunal found that Falun Gong is a 'creed' and that the Association provides a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents breached the Code by revoking the complainant's membership because of her creed and by making discriminatory comments.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to invite the complainant to rejoin the Association.

The parties advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that they had reached a settlement of all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding be terminated.

The complainant, a 15-year-old mother of twins, lived with and was dependent on her parents.

She applied for social assistance under the Ontario Works Act.

She was denied benefits for herself and received reduced benefits for her children because she lived with her parents.

She alleged discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the claim regarding benefits for herself, finding that minors living with their parents are generally ineligible.

However, the Tribunal found that reducing the benefits for her children solely because she lived with her parents constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the lost benefits and to cease considering whether a minor parent lives with their own parents when calculating benefits for the minor parent's children.

The complainant requested an order to correct the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision to 'DOT Benefits Corp.' and to add '1263699 Ontario Limited' as a jointly and severally liable party.

The Tribunal granted the request to correct the typographical error in the corporate respondent's name pursuant to section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the new corporate entity and impose joint and several liability, noting that such a substantive change may not fall within its power to correct typographical errors, and suggested the complainant pursue enforcement remedies through the courts.

The applicants, former employees of a closed refinery, alleged age and disability discrimination when they were not hired for new positions within the respondent company.

The Tribunal heard the evidence of the lead applicant, who alleged his placement on an attendance management program negatively impacted his performance ranking and subsequent failure to be hired.

The Tribunal found the statistical evidence unreliable and concluded the lead applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his disability played a role in his performance assessment, ranking, or the decision not to hire him.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a non-party intervenor requested a publication ban on portions of an investigation report and minutes of settlement produced in the proceeding, citing privacy and the integrity of confidential settlements.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding insufficient evidence to override the strong public interest in open hearings and the need for transparent decision-making.

However, the Tribunal granted a request to redact the home addresses of Ministry personnel from the exhibits due to safety concerns.

The complainant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court against the respondent Ministry for failing to disclose documents.

The Ministry objected to the intervenor union (OPSEU) participating in the contempt motion, arguing it fell outside the scope of their limited intervenor standing.

The Tribunal ruled that OPSEU may make submissions, as the alleged refusal to implement systemic remedies directly impacts its members and the union can provide valuable perspective on the Ministry-wide impact of the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

The complainant, a Sikh security guard who wears a turban, was assigned to a Home Depot construction site.

The assistant store manager ordered him to wear a hard hat and, when the complainant refused due to his religious beliefs, ordered him to leave the premises.

The Tribunal found that the hard hat rule was selectively enforced against the complainant, as other workers were permitted in the same areas without hard hats.

The Tribunal also found that the assistant store manager subjected the complainant to discriminatory harassment by goading him to remove his turban and taunting him with termination.

The hearing was bifurcated, with the duty to accommodate and occupational health and safety issues deferred to a second stage.

The complainant, a university professor, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal regarding the university's policy of cancelling classes on Jewish high holidays.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, as the university assumed full responsibility for their actions.

The Tribunal declined to add the current university president as a respondent.

The Tribunal also refused to strike allegations relating to events previously litigated in a grievance arbitration, finding that the substance of the reprisal claim was not before the arbitrator, though it noted the complainant could not relitigate the arbitrator's factual findings.

Finally, the Tribunal struck allegations regarding unrelated Superior Court litigation.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after being terminated for having pending criminal charges.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not been convicted.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code limits the definition of 'record of offences' to individuals who have been convicted of an offence.

The applications were dismissed with respect to the record of offences ground.

The applicant, who has Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability because the government provided residential group homes in his community for adults with cognitive disabilities, but not for medically challenged adults without cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Commission's investigation or disclosure.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was reasonable, as the comparator group had different needs and the government is permitted to target social programs to specific disadvantaged groups.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested to intervene in the human rights complaint and sought to bifurcate the hearing.

The Proposed Intervener suggested that the first stage address the location of the complainant's duties without its participation, and if the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is engaged, it would participate in the second stage.

The complainant and the Commission consented to this approach.

The respondents consented to the intervention but argued the Proposed Intervener should participate throughout.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene and bifurcate the hearing, allowing the Proposed Intervener to participate only in the second stage if the interaction between the OHSA and the Human Rights Code needs to be addressed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an order to withdraw from participating in the human rights complaint proceeding.

The complainant did not object but requested a 30-day adjournment to find legal counsel.

The Tribunal granted the Commission's request to withdraw, ordered the Commission to provide its disclosure file and hearing briefs to the complainant, and adjourned the hearing for 30 days to allow the complainant to seek counsel.

The Ottawa Police Services Board and individual officers requested an order to sever two human rights complaints alleging racial profiling during traffic stops, which had been consolidated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal determined that while it is not bound by the Commission's decision to consolidate, the complaints share sufficient commonalities in facts, issues, and policies to warrant being heard together.

The request to sever the complaints was dismissed.