Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police (No. 3)
1989-12-31
Kathleen Pattison
Complainant
The Board of Commissioners of Police for the Town of Fort Frances, Michael Solomon as Chief of Police, and Jack Murray as Deputy Chief of Police
Respondents
Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, D. J. Baum
Comm. Decision No.: 268C
Appearances by: Kim Twohig and M. Michele Smith, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Allan G. McKitrick, Counsel for the Respondents
DAMAGES — no monies owing to complainant based on interim ruling
Summary: The Board of Inquiry rules that on the basis of its interim award regarding damages, no monies are owing to Ms. Pattison in compensation for the discrimination she suffered.
[See also Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police (No. 2) (1989), 1989 CanLII 9065 (ON HRT), 11 C.H.R.R. D/345 (Ont. Bd.Inq.), Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police (1988), 1988 CanLII 8864 (ON HCJDC), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5831 (Ont. Div.Ct.); aff'g (sub nom. Pattison v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police) (1987), 1987 CanLII 8553 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3884 (Ont. Bd.Inq.).]
Legislation Cited
Ontario
Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c.53
Final Award
1On November 14, 1989, I issued an interim award intended to clarify certain points relative to the remand of this matter from Supreme Court of Ontario, Toronto Divisional Court [Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police, 1988 CanLII 8864 (ON HCJDC), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5831]. The clarification was intended to define the issues as I saw them in the context of the remand order and the submissions made by the parties.
2It will be recalled that the remand order called upon the Board of Inquiry to determine one matter and one matter only. The Court stated [at D/5835]:
The award [of the Board of Inquiry] is affirmed and the matter returned to conclude the determination of any monetary sum, if any, to which the appellant is entitled, in respect of the last mentioned direct discrimination. [Emphasis added.]
3On November 16, 1989, I received the following letter from M. Michele Smith, Senior Counsel for the Commission in this matter:
This will acknowledge receipt of you Interim Award dated November 14, 1989, on November 15, 1989.
Based on your Interim Award, there are no monies owing to the Complainant.
In light of this result, based on your Interim Award, we agree that it would be wasteful of public resources to convene a hearing.
Will you please confirm that the hearing set for November 21st has been cancelled. [Emphasis added.]
4A hearing had been tentatively scheduled for November 21, 1989 should the parties have felt that in the context of the remand order from the Court it would be warranted following the interim award in this matter. Copies of the interim award and the letter from Commission Senior Counsel were sent by courier both to Ms. Pattison and Mr. McKitrick, counsel for respondents. Mr. McKitrick by telephone informed me that he did not desire to proceed with the November 21 hearing. No comment was received from Ms. Pattison.
Award
5For the reasons set out above the complaints in the above-mentioned matter are dismissed.