HRTO 2001

In an ongoing human rights proceeding regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents brought a motion to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness, Dr. Ralph Agard.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his prior consulting work for the Ministry and that his previous 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 protect evidence of human rights infractions or evaluations of the workplace atmosphere.

Furthermore, the prior fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence or transform him into an advocate.

The expert was permitted to testify, though his evidence was ordered to be heard after the respondents' factual evidence.

The complainant, a Black man, rented a basement apartment from the respondents.

Shortly after moving in, the respondents subjected him to racial epithets, harassment, and unwarranted intrusions into his apartment.

The female respondent falsely accused the complainant of threatening to rape and kill her, leading to his arrest, strip search, and a police order barring him from the property.

While he was barred, the respondents obtained an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' conduct was racially motivated and violated the complainant's rights to equal treatment and freedom from harassment in accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant $29,719.82, which included compensation for tangible losses, $15,000 for the intrinsic value of the rights infringed, $10,000 for mental anguish, and pre-judgment interest, along with orders for future compliance.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to withdraw from active participation in a human rights complaint after reaching a settlement with the respondents that was unacceptable to the individual complainant.

The complainant objected to the Commission's withdrawal.

The Board of Inquiry held that it had no authority to compel the Commission to continue to carry the complaint or to review the settlement.

However, to ensure a fair transition for the unrepresented complainant, the Board exercised its power to control its process by ordering the Commission to prepare and file a statement of facts before withdrawing.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint and engaged in reprisal.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Respondents breached the settlement by failing to make reasonable efforts to secure continuing employment for the Complainant and by failing to give her priority for vacant positions, instead imposing a new Cree language requirement.

The reprisal allegations were dismissed.

The Board awarded $5,000 in general damages and compensation for lost wages.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) requested a stay of proceedings pending an intended Application for Judicial Review of an interim decision making it a party to the human rights complaint.

The complainant opposed the stay.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim case management decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the stay request, granting CMHC an extension of time to file its response until after the stay determination, and declining to schedule hearing dates at this time.

Transportation Action Now, Inc. (TAN) brought a motion seeking to intervene in a human rights complaint regarding the Toronto Transit Commission's Wheel-Trans service.

TAN sought full non-party intervenor status to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal submissions.

The Board of Inquiry reviewed its jurisdiction to grant intervenor status and the criteria for amicus curiae participation.

The Board found that while the case involved public interest, TAN did not demonstrate a current expertise or a perspective different from the existing parties (the Commission and the Complainants) that would assist the Board.

The motion to intervene was dismissed.

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

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

The respondents sought to reconvene the hearing to adduce further evidence regarding the impact of the death, while the Commission and complainants opposed this or sought different procedural routes.

The adjudicator issued an interim decision directing the complainants to advise whether they intended to participate in any further hearing regarding the impact of the respondent's death, and set a timetable for the parties to indicate their preferred procedural options.

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 its Men's Plus facility.

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

The Commission and complainants sought orders requiring the posting of the Board's decisions and an enforcement mechanism converting the Men's Plus facility if construction was delayed.

The Board ordered the posting of its decisions but declined to order the enforcement mechanism at this time, noting it was not part of the original agreement and could be punitive, though it left open the possibility of reconsidering if future delays occurred.

The complainant and the respondent co-operative housing provider brought a motion to add the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) as a respondent to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation based on receipt of public assistance.

CMHC opposed the motion, arguing that as a federal Crown agent exercising the federal spending power, it was immune from provincial human rights legislation.

The Board of Inquiry held that CMHC's status as a Crown agent did not immunize it from the application of provincial law, and that the provision of funding to the co-operative did not bring the matter of accommodation within exclusive federal legislative authority.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over CMHC and the subject matter, and ordered CMHC added as a party respondent.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the respondents objected to the admissibility of two types of evidence proposed by the Commission.

The Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, and evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry upheld the respondents' objections, ruling that both types of evidence were irrelevant to the material facts in dispute.

The similar fact evidence lacked sufficient similarity and nexus to the complaints, while the academic credentials evidence was collateral and went only to credibility.

The respondents brought a motion to dispose of the human rights complaints without a hearing, following a full settlement between the parties.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission consented to the disposition pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board of Inquiry deemed the executed confirmation of settlement as sufficient indicium of the complainants' consent and ordered the matter disposed of without a hearing.

The complainant, Kate Jones, alleged that her employer, Amway of Canada Ltd., and her supervisor, Art Knott, terminated her employment as a reprisal for making a sexual harassment complaint against Knott.

After Jones complained about Knott's behaviour, Amway conducted an investigation and concluded that no sexual harassment had occurred.

Amway offered Jones the option to return to her position with certain modifications to minimize personal contact with Knott.

Jones agreed to return but subsequently failed to attend a required vendor visit and submitted a memorandum that Amway interpreted as a refusal to move forward and repair the working relationship.

Amway then terminated her employment without cause.

The Board of Inquiry found that Amway's investigation was adequate and reasonable, and that the termination was not motivated by retaliatory intent but rather by Jones's unreasonable refusal to participate in repairing the working relationship.

The complaint of reprisal was dismissed.

The respondent employer brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap, arguing that the complainant's receipt of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits estopped her from claiming she was capable of working.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the abuse of process motion, finding that the issues and parties before the CPP adjudicative structure were not the same as those before the Board, and thus issue estoppel did not apply.

The respondent also moved to strike portions of the Commission's amended pleading.

The Board granted this motion in part, striking allegations that fell outside the specific subject-matter of the individual complaint, while noting that similar fact evidence might still be admissible if relevant and probative.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address two implementation issues arising from a previous decision finding that the Barrie YMCA's facilities discriminated against women.

The complainants and the Commission alleged that the YMCA failed to post the decision as ordered and failed to provide architect's plans for a comparable Women's Plus facility.

The adjudicator found no breach regarding the posting of the decision, noting the delay was an error and the YMCA offered to extend the posting period.

Regarding the comparability of the facilities, the adjudicator directed that the hearing reconvene to address conflicting evidence on the net area of the proposed spaces.

The respondents requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because the personal respondent was required to travel to a conference.

The Commission requested disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which was the stated reason for their termination.

The Board of Inquiry denied the adjournment request, finding it would be too disruptive and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the respondents' assessment of the complainants' work performance.

The complainant, an employee of the respondent, went on medical leave due to reactive depression and chronic fatigue syndrome.

When her long-term disability benefits ended, her doctor cleared her to return to work with restrictions.

The respondent failed to clarify these restrictions, did not consider her for contract or general clerical work, and required her to compete for a position over a year later.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent directly discriminated against the complainant on the basis of handicap by failing to accommodate her return to work.

The respondent was ordered to pay lost wages, provide service recognition credits, and pay $10,000 in general damages.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion seeking the disclosure of minutes from the respondent Friendship Centre's Board of Directors meetings dating back to May 1992.

The underlying complaint alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement and reprisal.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion, finding that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including how positions were funded and filled, and whether the board manifested a hostile attitude towards the complainant.

The respondents were ordered to produce the minutes.

The respondents brought a motion for costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of the underlying human rights complaints.

The respondents argued that the complaints were trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and caused them undue hardship due to the Commission's conduct and the length of the proceedings.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complaints were instituted in good faith and were not devoid of merit.

While acknowledging the extraordinary delay and the disproportionate responsibility of Commission counsel for protracting the hearing, the Board concluded that the respondents, as entities of considerable means, did not suffer undue hardship within the meaning of section 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, a part-time firefighter with a visual impairment, applied for a full-time position.

He was denied employment because his visual impairment prevented him from obtaining a class F licence, which was required to operate the town's ambulance.

The Board of Inquiry found that the requirement to hold a class F licence was prima facie discriminatory.

The respondents failed to establish that the requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement, as they did not properly consider whether the complainant could be accommodated by performing firefighting duties only, without undue hardship.

The Board concluded that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.