11 total
Request for early document production denied as premature absent exceptional circumstances.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early disclosure of documents referenced in the respondents' Response, arguing they were necessary to file a Reply.
The respondents objected, arguing the request was premature.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure provide for document exchange later in the process and that early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.
Leave to amend a s. 7 Charter claim regarding disability benefit procedures expanded to include broader procedural unfairness.
The appellants commenced a proposed class action alleging that the procedures used to process claims for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits were inefficient and procedurally unfair, claiming negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.
The motion judge struck the statement of claim but granted leave to amend the s. 7 claim solely regarding the failure to give reasons for denying benefits.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and s. 15 claims, but expanded the leave to amend the s. 7 claim to include other potential procedural fairness deficiencies beyond just the failure to give reasons.
Dentist's appeal of professional misconduct findings and penalty dismissed; no apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness found.
The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his orthodontic practice.
The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds of appeal, including a reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel arising from a prior undertaking, inappropriate use of expert evidence, non-disclosure, and the severity of the penalty.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in the committee's evidentiary rulings, and that the remedial penalty was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.
Human Rights Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award legal costs to complainants as part of general damages.
The appellant appealed the remedy decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a finding of employment discrimination.
The respondent cross-appealed the quantum of damages and the award of legal costs.
The appellant also brought a constitutional challenge arguing that s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, which allows costs to be awarded to respondents but not complainants, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.
The Divisional Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that economic interests are not protected under s. 7 and that complainants do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on lost income and interest but allowed the cross-appeal in part, reducing the general damages award from $35,000 to $25,000 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include $10,000 for legal costs under s. 41(1)(b).
Stay of human rights hearing granted pending judicial review of tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed without Commission.
The applicant school board sought a stay of a Board of Inquiry hearing regarding a human rights complaint, pending an application for judicial review.
The school board argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the remedy phase of the hearing because the Human Rights Commission had settled with the school board and withdrawn from the proceedings.
Applying recent jurisprudence, the Divisional Court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding jurisdiction and that proceeding would cause irreparable harm.
The stay was granted.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as union's refusal to grieve lacked arbitrary or discriminatory conduct.
The complainant, an occasional supply teacher, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to file grievances regarding his failure to obtain a permanent teaching position, his lack of access to his complete personnel file, and his failure to obtain teaching assignments after June 1986.
He also alleged that the union violated section 72(5) and (6) by providing insufficient notice of a general meeting.
The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the collective agreement did not provide rights to permanent employment or complete personnel file access, and that the union's handling of his lack of assignments was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
The Board also found no violation regarding the meeting notice.
Human rights complaint dismissed; employee's discipline and transfer were due to insubordination, not racial discrimination.
The complainant, a security officer, alleged that he was discriminated against because of his race and place of origin when he was disciplined and transferred by his employer following an investigation into a missing blood pressure kit.
The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's supervisor lacked effective communication skills and had used racial slurs in the workplace, the specific disciplinary actions and transfer were not racially motivated.
The complaint was dismissed as the employer's actions were based on the complainant's insubordination and inappropriate behaviour during the investigation, rather than his race.
Subpoenas duces tecum set aside as human rights legislation does not authorize pre-hearing discovery.
The respondent hospital raised two preliminary objections in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination.
First, the hospital argued that the particulars provided by the Commission were inadequate.
The Board dismissed this objection, finding the particulars sufficient to define the issues and allow preparation for the hearing.
Second, the hospital moved to set aside two subpoenas duces tecum requiring staff to produce documents.
The Board granted the motion and set aside the subpoenas, holding that while the Code allows for document production during the investigation stage, it does not authorize a right to discovery prior to a hearing.
Employer held liable for failing to eradicate racial harassment and name-calling in the workplace.
The complainant, an East Indian warehouse worker, alleged that his termination and the treatment he received during his employment constituted discrimination based on race.
The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's dismissal for insubordination was unfair, it was not motivated by racial discrimination.
However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the terms and conditions of employment, finding that the workplace was permeated with racial name-calling and harassment.
The employer was held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to eradicate this discriminatory environment.
The complainant was awarded $1,000 in general damages, and the employer was ordered to establish a Management-Employee Race Relations Committee.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to extreme and unjustified delay of over two years.
The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union over two and a half years after she was discharged by her employer.
Following her discharge, the union declined to file a grievance, and the complainant pursued remedies against the employer through the Human Rights Commission and the courts.
The Board dismissed the complaint without inquiring into the merits, finding that the extreme delay prejudiced the union and that the complainant's pursuit of other remedies against the employer did not justify the delay in proceeding against the union.
Union's practice of prioritizing qualified commercial members for commercial job referrals does not violate duty of fair representation.
The complainant, a residential member of the respondent union, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation by giving priority to commercial members for referrals to commercial jobs.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's practice of distinguishing between members who had passed its internal entrance examination (commercial members) and those who had not (residential members) was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
The complaint was dismissed.
