HRTO 2001

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, as well as evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry ruled both types of evidence inadmissible.

The proposed similar fact evidence lacked a nexus to the material facts in dispute, and the academic credentials of the respondent were irrelevant to his ability to assess the complainants' performance.

The respondent CMHC brought a motion for a stay or, in the alternative, an adjournment of the human rights complaint proceedings pending its application for judicial review of an interim decision adding it as a party.

The Board of Inquiry denied the stay, finding that CMHC would not suffer irreparable harm if the proceedings continued.

However, the Board granted an adjournment, concluding that the jurisdictional issue raised by CMHC was substantial and the balance of convenience favoured adjourning the matter to avoid potentially unnecessary expenditures of time and public funds.

The complainant brought a motion to add the President and CEO of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent to her human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal termination.

The respondents failed to attend the motion or file responding materials.

The Board of Inquiry found the motion record was properly served and granted the request to add the CEO as a party, noting his involvement in the termination decision and the lack of prejudice.

The Board also directed the respondents to provide disclosure and file pleadings, warning that failure to do so could result in the exclusion of their evidence at the hearing.

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.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss or stay a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The complainant, a transit operator diagnosed with narcolepsy, was transferred to a maintenance position but lost his accumulated seniority due to the collective agreement's lack of system-wide seniority.

The union argued the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, was an abuse of process, and improperly expanded the issues.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint clearly raised the issue of whether the loss of seniority upon disability-related transfer constituted adverse discrimination, establishing a prima facie case.

The Board also held that it had jurisdiction to make orders affecting future practices and other union members.

The Board of Inquiry heard two pre-hearing motions in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought an adjournment because a personal respondent was required to travel to a conference, which the Board denied as it would cause undue delay and disrupt the proceedings.

The Commission sought disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which led to their termination.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the termination assessment.

The complainants and the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleged that the YMCA of Barrie failed to comply with a previous Board of Inquiry order regarding the posting of a decision and the provision of comparable facilities for women.

The adjudicator found that the late posting of the decision was an unintentional error and required no further order.

Regarding the comparability of the proposed Women's Plus facility to the Men's Plus facility, the adjudicator found that conflicting measurements and plans necessitated reconvening the hearing to address the outstanding issues.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding the implementation of a previous order requiring the Barrie YMCA to construct a Women's Plus facility comparable to the Men's Plus facility.

The parties agreed to a revised construction schedule and renovations to the Men's Plus facility to ensure comparability.

The Board ordered that all its decisions be posted on the YMCA's membership bulletin board until construction is completed.

However, the Board declined to order an immediate enforcement mechanism that would convert the Men's Plus facility to a Women's Plus facility in the event of further delays, noting it was not part of the original agreement, though it left open the possibility of such an order if future delays are attributable to the YMCA.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents, Iswood Holdings Inc. and Keel Staff Enterprises Inc., after discovering that the original corporate respondent did not own all three franchise locations involved.

The adjudicator granted the motion, noting the companies were intermingled and the president of all three was aware of the misconception.

Subsequently, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent for lack of evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed this motion as premature, ruling that the respondent must either elect whether to call evidence or wait until all evidence is heard before bringing a motion for non-suit.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) requested a stay of proceedings pending an intended application for judicial review of a previous interim decision making it a party to a human rights complaint.

The complainant opposed the stay and requested that hearing dates be scheduled.

The Board of Inquiry directed the parties to provide written submissions on the stay request and declined to schedule hearing dates at this time.

CMHC was granted an extension to file its response until after the stay issue is determined.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights complaints as an abuse of process.

After the motion was heard but before a decision was released, one of the personal respondents died suddenly.

The parties disagreed on how to proceed with the new evidence regarding the respondent's death.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision directing the complainants to indicate whether they intended to participate in further hearings on the issue, and setting a timetable for the parties to state their positions on the procedural options.

The respondent Union brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to union membership because of handicap.

The complainant and the TTC had previously entered into a settlement agreement regarding a separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement agreement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

The Board of Inquiry convened a teleconference to address the scheduling of a human rights complaint following the Court of Appeal's decision remitting the matter back to the Board.

The respondent advised it would be seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and took the position that the Board lacked continuing jurisdiction pending the leave application.

The Vice-Chair noted that the application for judicial review did not operate as an automatic stay under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the complainant's counsel was unable to join the call, the Board directed the complainant to provide written submissions on whether the hearing should be stayed or adjourned, and whether the respondent should be required to comply with a prior disclosure order pending the leave application.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents who owned other franchise locations.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding the respondents were aware of the misconception regarding ownership and the operations were intermingled.

The respondents also moved for a non-suit to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion without prejudice, requiring the respondents to elect whether to call evidence before a non-suit motion could be heard, as the tribunal needed to hear all evidence to determine his liability.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on handicap.

The complainant had previously settled his separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

The respondent Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) brought a motion for a stay or adjournment of the Board of Inquiry proceedings pending its application for judicial review of an interim decision adding it as a party.

The Board denied the stay, finding that CMHC would not suffer irreparable harm, but granted an adjournment based on the balance of convenience, as the jurisdictional issue was substantial and proceeding could result in wasted resources if CMHC's judicial review application succeeded.

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.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay human rights complaints alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, arguing that the Commission failed to properly attempt settlement, that the complaints were delayed, and that a settlement with the franchisor (TDL) triggered res judicata.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commission's pre-referral conduct unless it amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board held that res judicata did not apply to the TDL settlement and that the respondents failed to demonstrate actual, significant prejudice resulting from the delay or the Commission's conduct to justify a stay for abuse of process.

A request to remove certain corporate respondents was also denied.

The complainants, two young black individuals, alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of age and colour after their rental application was rejected.

The rejection was based on their failure to meet a 33% rent-to-income ratio and a requirement for permanent employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the use of rent-to-income ratios and minimum job tenure criteria adversely impacted young persons and visible minorities, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Although the corporate landlord was vicariously liable, the Board declined to order damages because the complainants had already settled with one of the corporate partners and the proper landlord entity was not named as a respondent.

The Board ordered the property manager to cease using rent-to-income ratios and permanent employment requirements.

The complainant brought a motion to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The Board of Inquiry considered whether it 'appeared' that the prospective respondents infringed the complainant's rights under the Human Rights Code and whether adding them would cause substantial prejudice.

The Board added the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, Intertask Group of Companies, and Leanne Akehurst as party respondents, finding a sufficient nexus to the alleged discrimination.

The Board declined to add the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Hubert Drouin, and Paul Akehurst due to a lack of evidence of their involvement.

The Board also declined to add Manpower Services Canada Limited, finding that the five-year delay in providing notice caused substantial prejudice to its ability to mount a full defence.

The complainant's arguments regarding the Commission's pre-referral conduct and constitutional violations were dismissed as being outside the Board's jurisdiction.