Geri Sanson

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of s. 33 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that the provision should be interpreted to require an investigator to prepare and submit a report of their findings to the Commission, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in University of British Columbia v. Berg.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to read such a requirement into the statute, as there is no uniformity across Canadian human rights legislation regarding investigator reports.

Following a finding that the personal respondent sexually harassed the complainant and took reprisals against her for filing a human rights complaint, the Board of Inquiry assessed remedies.

The Board awarded the complainant maximum general damages and mental anguish damages for the sexual harassment and solicitation, as well as separate damages for the retaliatory conduct, which included the commencement of a $1.5 million civil action against her.

The Board also awarded lost wages and legal expenses incurred as a direct result of the reprisal, and held a successor corporation jointly and severally liable for the awards.

In an interim decision following a finding of liability for sexual harassment and reprisal, the respondents brought a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator had previously interacted professionally with the complainant's father.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding the respondents had waived their right to object by continuing to participate in the hearing after the disclosure, and that the brief interaction 14 years prior did not meet the test for bias.

The adjudicator also granted the respondents an extension of time to file written submissions on specific remedy issues, finding no prejudice to the other parties.

The respondents brought a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator and requesting an extension of time to file submissions on remedy.

The bias allegation stemmed from the adjudicator's brief professional interaction with the complainant's father fourteen years prior.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding the respondents had waived their right to object by continuing to participate in the hearing after the initial disclosure, and that the facts did not support a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator granted the respondents' request for an extension of time to file written submissions on remedy, subject to specific limitations to prevent prejudice to the other parties.

The appellant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Commission's refusal to refer her discrimination complaint to a board of inquiry and sought broad pre-hearing examination and production under r. 39.03.

The Court of Appeal split on whether further disclosure could be compelled from the Commission, with the majority holding that deliberative secrecy and the absence of general discovery on judicial review do not bar a focused examination where there is an objectively reasonable concern that undisclosed facts, arguments, considerations, or strategic factors may have informed the decision.

The court held that the appellant was entitled to examine a senior Commission official on what additional material was before the commissioners, whether strategic concerns influenced the decision, and whether unrevealed reasons existed.

The appeal from the order striking portions of the appellant's affidavit was dismissed, but the appeal concerning the scope of examination was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The complainant alleged that her employer sexually harassed her, subjected her to sexual solicitations, and created a poisoned work environment.

After she filed a human rights complaint, the employer served her with a $1.5 million civil claim and sent threatening letters to her and her witnesses.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct violated multiple sections of the Human Rights Code, including the rights to be free from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The corporate respondent was also held liable for the employer's actions as its directing mind.

The Board retained jurisdiction to determine remedies.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding allegations of sexual harassment, the Commission brought motions to add a corporate respondent, add an allegation of reprisal, and obtain a cease and desist order against the personal respondent.

The adjudicator granted the motions to add the corporate respondent and the reprisal allegation.

Finding that the personal respondent had engaged in intimidating conduct, including serving a civil claim on the complainant in the hearing room and sending threatening correspondence, the adjudicator issued an order under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act directing him to cease direct contact with the complainant, the Commission, and witnesses, and to refrain from using threatening or insulting language.

The adjudicator declined to rule on the respondents' motions for a stay and production of documents due to the personal respondent's unexcused absence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her human rights complaint and its subsequent refusal to reconsider that decision.

The Commission had found that the applicant acted in bad faith by pursuing a complaint after signing a release with her former employer.

The Commission later conceded it erred and brought a motion to quash its own decisions on consent of the applicant, which the employer opposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Commission's motion, holding that a judicial review cannot be settled without the consent of all parties.

On the merits of the judicial review, the Court found the Commission improperly fettered its discretion by equating the signing of a release with bad faith without considering the context, and erred in requiring new facts for a reconsideration.

The decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to the Commission.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.

In this interim decision on preliminary matters, the Adjudicator ruled on several motions regarding document disclosure, witness attendance, and the admissibility of medical certificates.

The Respondents' motions to compel the attendance of two physicians and to require disclosure of the Complainant's complete medical files were denied.

Five documents, including medical certificates and internal correspondence, were ruled admissible.

The Adjudicator also addressed procedural matters concerning notice of the Respondents' case and potential Charter arguments.

At the hearing of a human rights complaint, the parties advised the Board of Inquiry that a settlement had been reached.

The complainant confirmed satisfaction with the settlement terms, agreed not to pursue the complaint further, and agreed to a five-year confidentiality clause regarding the settlement and allegations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission elected not to present additional evidence.

Based on the settlement and the parties' statements, the Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a tenant of Cambodian ancestry, alleged that her landlord discriminated against her and other Asian tenants by failing to maintain their apartment building and by making racial slurs.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the living conditions were deplorable, they affected all tenants regardless of race and therefore did not constitute unequal treatment under section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Board found that the landlord engaged in unlawful reprisal under section 8 of the Code by cutting off the complainant's electricity, illegally raising her rent, and issuing an eviction notice after she filed her human rights complaint.

The landlord was ordered to pay $2,500 in general and punitive damages.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

The complainant, a woman trained as an industrial mechanic, applied for a millwright apprentice position with the respondent.

She was told the job was unsuitable for a woman due to lack of facilities and potential discontent among male workers' wives.

The Board of Inquiry found that while no position was actually available at the time, the respondent discriminated against the complainant in the hiring process based on stereotypical attitudes about women in non-traditional occupations.

The Board awarded $3,000 in damages for humiliation and ordered the respondent to implement non-discriminatory hiring practices.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.

However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested directions regarding a prior interim decision that imposed a publicity ban on a sexual harassment hearing until the Board's decision is released.

The Commission sought approval to issue a notice to the media containing the time, place, and a summary of the allegations.

The respondents objected to disclosing the nature of the complaint, arguing it would prejudice the public.

The Board of Inquiry approved the Commission's draft notice, finding it essential for the public to know what the inquiry is about to make an informed decision to attend, provided the notice prominently displays the limitations imposed by the publicity ban.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Guelph to Kitchener, to hold the hearing in camera, and for a publication ban.

The respondent child protection agency argued that negative publicity would harm its ability to serve the community and raise funds.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the requests for a change of venue and an in camera hearing, finding no sufficient basis to depart from the principle of open hearings and the educational purposes of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Board granted a publication ban preventing the news media from reporting on the proceedings until the release of the Board's final decision.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the human rights proceedings on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the adjudicator was a complainant in another sex discrimination case and had expertise in feminist legal scholarship.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that involvement as a party in an unrelated human rights complaint does not create an apprehension of bias.

Furthermore, the Board held that an adjudicator's background in feminist scholarship and involvement in women's organizations does not constitute bias, as requiring adjudicators to have no prior involvement in human rights issues would hamper fair and knowledgeable adjudication.

The respondents sought to stay a human rights board of inquiry proceeding based on an order issued by the Quebec Superior Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Board of Inquiry held that the CCAA does not bind the Crown, and that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a Crown agency immune from the stay order.

Furthermore, the Board found that human rights proceedings are quasi-constitutional in nature and do not constitute 'proceedings' within the meaning of section 11 of the CCAA.

The motion to stay the proceedings was dismissed.