Fiona Campbell

The complainant, an East Indian man with extensive education and experience, alleged that the Ministry of Community and Social Services discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnic origin by repeatedly failing to promote him over a 17-year period.

He applied for 30 promotional positions without success.

The Board of Inquiry reviewed the evidence, including expert testimony on systemic racism and employment equity, and the specific job competitions.

The Board found that the complainant was not qualified for the senior management Programme Supervisor positions.

For the Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor positions, the Board concluded that the successful candidates were either more qualified or selected for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondent brought preliminary motions to stay a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at a Sears store, following the death of the complainant.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, the issue was moot, delay prejudiced the case, and proceeding was an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all motions, finding that the Trustee Act permits the estate to continue the action, the public interest prevents the issue from being moot, facts could still be established through other witnesses, and the Commission's decision to proceed despite an investigator's recommendation was not an abuse of process.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion requesting that the adjudicator disqualify himself from hearing a human rights complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent argued that the adjudicator's full-time employment as a union representative created a perception of bias in favour of employees.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable observer would not perceive bias simply because the adjudicator works as an advocate for employees in private negotiations, as he had no direct connection to the parties and had expressed no public views on the specific issues to be adjudicated.

The respondent Ministry brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint as an abuse of process due to delay.

The Ministry argued that it could not present a defence because documents generated during the civil service competition in question had been routinely destroyed.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was not chargeable to the Commission and there was no evidence of an ulterior purpose.

The Board held that the Ministry could not rely on its own policy of routinely destroying internal documents to insulate itself from a human rights inquiry.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The respondents argued the complaint should be stayed due to a three-year delay by the Commission and because the matter was res judicata following prior proceedings under the Police Act.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motions, finding that the delay did not prejudice the respondents' right to a fair hearing and that the human rights complaint involved a different legal question regarding the duty to accommodate, which was not considered in the Police Act proceedings.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including insubordination and neglect of duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission first ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to admit new evidence of post-hearing conduct absent special circumstances, and that it could not impose penalties outside the prescribed statutory scheme.

On the merits, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's alcoholism, his extensive prior disciplinary record and psychological assessments indicating an inability to function as a First Class Constable justified the termination of his employment.