Ontario Board of Inquiry
BOARD OF INQUIRY (Human Rights Code)
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaint of Gord Ames, dated November 2, 1992, Ray Williams dated August 30, 1996 and Doug Hodge dated May 27, 1996, alleging discrimination in employment because of handicap.
B E T W E E N :
Hodge et al
Complainants
- and -
District of Halton and Mississauga Ambulance Service
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKeller
Date: April 25, 2000
Board File No: BI-0194/95/96/96-98
Decision No: 00-006
The parties have filed written consents purporting to have the Board issue an order "dismissing this matter without costs".
Notwithstanding the assertions of counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission that "the decisions in Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital and in Fleetwood Ambulance are determinative of the outcome for these three complaints", in the absence of a hearing the Board cannot conclude that this is the case and will not dismiss the complaints on this basis. The parties are reminded of the Board's statutory obligation to hold a hearing. See Section 39(1) of the Code.
The terms of the consents executed by the parties clearly indicate that they have resolved this matter among themselves. Where the parties resolve a complaint without a hearing, Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Practice requires the Commission to provide the Board with an executed Form 3 and a draft order. Upon receipt of those materials, the Board will issue an order disposing of the matter. Notwithstanding the failure of the Commission to comply with Rule 46, the Board is prepared to follow its usual practice.
The complaints are hereby disposed of in accordance with the terms of settlement agreed to by the parties.
Notwithstanding the indulgence granted to the Commission in this case, it will be expected to strictly comply with Rule 46 in the future.
Dated at Toronto this 25th day of April, 2000
Mary Anne McKellar
Vice-Chair