Dr. Ralph Agard

The applicant, a Black man employed as an Installation Scheduler, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour and reprisal.

He claimed he was assigned menial tasks, unfairly disciplined, and ignored because of his race, and that an email about an installation team had racial undertones.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims, finding no evidence that the employer's actions were based on Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's termination was a reprisal for raising human rights concerns with management.

The employer failed to investigate or address his complaints and instead terminated his employment shortly after he raised them, using pre-textual reasons.

The Tribunal awarded $55,799.70 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the corporate respondent to retain a human rights expert to review its policies and conduct training.

The applicant, a Senior Investigator with the respondent Ministry's Independent Investigations Unit, sought to intervene in an ongoing human rights proceeding.

He argued that an expert report to be introduced by the Commission recommended abolishing his unit, which could affect his employment.

The Board of Inquiry denied the request, finding no statutory basis to add him as a party under section 39 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board also declined to grant amicus curiae status, concluding that his intervention would unduly delay the proceedings and that his interests were already adequately represented by the respondent Ministry.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents moved to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his consulting work for the Ministry and that his prior lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not apply to evidence of human rights infractions or expert opinions on systemic change, and that the fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence.

However, the adjudicator ordered that the expert testify after the respondents' evidence to avoid prejudice.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents brought a motion to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness, Dr. Ralph Agard.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his prior consulting work for the Ministry and that his previous lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not protect evidence of human rights infractions or evaluations of the workplace atmosphere.

Furthermore, the prior fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence or transform him into an advocate.

The expert was permitted to testify, though his evidence was ordered to be heard after the respondents' factual evidence.