Eddie Taylor

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a university hiring process, the Commission requested further particulars and production of documents midway through the hearing.

The requested documents included faculty turnover rates, staffing complement, other competition processes, post-hiring evaluations of the successful candidate, and submissions to the Maclean's university survey.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or that the request was made too late without explanation.

The Tribunal also declined to require that notice of a summons be given to a witness under section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing instead that the summoned documents be produced to counsel.

The complainant, a restaurant employee, alleged that a co-worker sexually harassed her by deliberately flicking her breast.

She reported the incident to management, who conducted an investigation.

The Tribunal found that the single incident constituted sexual harassment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the employer's investigation was seriously flawed and unreasonable, and that management engaged in reprisal against the complainant after she asserted her legal rights, ultimately leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages against the co-worker and the employer, as well as special damages for lost wages against the employer.

The Commission and the Complainant sought to rescind an order disposing of a human rights complaint, arguing it was issued in error before the Respondents had fully complied with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal rescinded the order, finding there was no valid consent to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

However, the Tribunal found the settlement agreement remained binding under section 43 of the Human Rights Code and declined to add a new respondent, issue an interim compliance order, or award legal expenses, noting that enforcement mechanisms were available elsewhere.

The respondents brought a motion for the production of the entire contents of a closed Ontario Human Rights Commission file pertaining to a separate complaint made by the complainant against a different contractor.

The Commission had previously decided not to refer that complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to order the production of a closed, unreferred file.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the information in the closed file met the Wigmore test for privilege and ought to remain confidential to protect the integrity of the Commission's investigation and settlement processes.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation.

After several pre-hearing motions, the complainant's counsel was removed from the record and the complainant could not be located.

The Commission brought a motion to dispose of the complaint.

The respondent sought an order dismissing the complaint and awarding costs against the Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but declined to award costs, finding no evidence that the Commission acted improperly or that the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

The Tribunal heard several procedural motions regarding the examination of witnesses and disclosure of documents following an order permitting the Commission to amend the complaint to include allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal provided specific directions on which party would lead the examination of various witnesses, including union employees, police officers, and contractors.

The Tribunal also ordered that all documents related to the reprisal allegations be disclosed forthwith, ruled that undisclosed documents could not be introduced during cross-examination, required privileged documents to be categorized, and determined that new allegations raised in testimony would only be considered for credibility purposes.

The corporate respondent brought a motion seeking production of the complainant's clinical notes and records regarding her mental and psychological stability, arguing her erratic behaviour went to her credibility.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no nexus between the sexual harassment and reprisal complaint and the requested medical records.

The complainant had not put her psychological state in issue, making the records irrelevant.

The Tribunal noted that credibility and reliability of testimony would be assessed in the normal course without granting a fishing licence into the complainant's private life.

The complainant, a Native single mother, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on ancestry and family status when she attempted to rent an apartment.

The adjudicator found that the respondent landlord made derogatory comments about Native people and refused to accept her deposit after learning she was Native and a single mother.

The tribunal held that the respondents violated the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $9,000 in general damages and $100 in special damages, and to undergo human rights training.

Two female employees filed human rights complaints alleging sexual solicitation and harassment by the male co-owner of a variety store.

The adjudicator found that the respondent repeatedly subjected the complainants and other female staff to unwelcome sexual comments, physical touching, and propositions, creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's denials and conspiracy theories were rejected as implausible, while the complainants' evidence was found credible and corroborated by similar fact evidence from other former employees.

The tribunal held the respondent and the partnership jointly and severally liable, awarding general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and ordering public interest remedies including human rights training.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainants brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Thunder Bay to Atikokan, Ontario, as all participants and witnesses resided there.

The respondents consented to the venue change.

The respondents also requested an extension to file their pleadings and make disclosure, having missed two previous deadlines due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the venue change based on the balance of convenience and granted the respondents a final, peremptory extension to file their pleadings.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding brought an interim motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator.

The complainant and the Commission argued that the adjudicator's interventions during the cross-examination of the unrepresented respondent created an appearance of partiality.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the limited interventions in a highly emotional hearing with unrepresented parties did not meet the threshold for disqualification under the reasonable person test.

The complainant, who suffers from a mental disorder, sought to rent a room in the respondent's rooming house.

After paying the first and last month's rent and receiving the keys, the complainant disclosed her disability to the respondent over the telephone.

The respondent subsequently imposed discriminatory conditions on her tenancy, including a requirement that she leave the house when other tenants had guests over.

The complainant reasonably terminated the agreement and sought the return of her money, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal found that the respondent infringed the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in general damages, $600 in special damages, and to post Human Rights Code cards in the rooming house.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought an interlocutory injunction from the Federal Court to prevent the respondents from communicating telephonic hate messages pending a human rights tribunal decision.

The Federal Court granted the injunction, but the respondents subsequently set up a new phone line in the US and referred callers to it, leading to a contempt of court finding.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the injunction for lack of jurisdiction but upheld the contempt finding.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court does have jurisdiction to issue an injunction under s. 44 of the Federal Court Act, and affirmed the contempt finding because the respondents knowingly violated a valid court order.