HRTO 2003

The complainant, a young black woman, was employed as a receptionist by the respondent physiotherapist.

She alleged that the respondent subjected her to ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including unwanted physical contact, racial slurs, and exposure to pornography.

When she repeatedly rejected his advances and formally asked him to stop, he refused to give her a promised raise and ultimately terminated her employment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct created a poisoned work environment and constituted intersectional discrimination based on both race and sex.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $3,384 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement anti-discrimination policies and undergo training.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

Prior to the hearing, the complainant passed away intestate, and no estate trustee was appointed.

The respondents argued that the proceeding could not continue without an appointed estate trustee.

The Tribunal held that it has the jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing despite the complainant's death and the absence of an estate trustee, noting that the Commission is a separate party with carriage of the complaint and a mandate to advocate for the public interest.

The complainant in a sexual harassment case brought a motion for a partial publication ban to protect her identity and that of her same-sex partner.

The complainant argued that disclosure would cause her significant anxiety and embarrassment, and that her family was unaware of her same-sex relationship.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission supported the motion, while the respondents did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the complainant's dignity and privacy interests outweighed the public interest in full disclosure, and that a partial ban would not impede the respondents' right to a fair hearing.

The Commission brought a motion during a pre-hearing conference to amend the complaint by correcting the personal respondent's name to Richard Hetherington and adding his corporation, Richland Marketing Inc., as a corporate respondent.

The respondents did not appear despite being served.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was the directing mind of the corporation and that adding the corporation would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion to amend the name, add the corporate respondent, and ordered substituted service due to the respondents evading service.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether the Complainant complied with the conditions of an earlier interim decision, which allowed amendments to the complaint to claim general and liquidated damages, provided steps were taken to avoid double indemnification with a concurrent civil action.

The Respondents argued the Complainant failed to amend the civil claim to remove the overlapping damages.

The Tribunal found that the Complainant's written assurances not to seek double indemnification satisfied the condition, noting that any potential overlap could be addressed at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed the amended pleadings were in full force and set a schedule for further disclosure and responses.

Five female complainants alleged that the respondent, operating as Patrons Online, subjected them to sexual solicitation and harassment during job interviews and subsequent employment.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent abused his position of power to sexually harass the complainants, asking inappropriate personal questions, demanding dates, and in one case, luring a complainant to his residence.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent retaliated against three complainants by terminating their employment when they rejected his advances, and threatened another with a lawsuit for attempting to complain.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for loss of income to the complainants, and ordered public interest remedies including the implementation of a workplace harassment policy.

Counsel for the respondent brought a motion to be removed from the record after losing contact with his client.

The respondent had apparently abandoned his business and left the country permanently.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that counsel had made all reasonable efforts to locate his client.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing on the merits would proceed as scheduled, as the respondent was on notice of the dates.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainants brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Thunder Bay to Atikokan, Ontario, as all participants and witnesses resided there.

The respondents consented to the venue change.

The respondents also requested an extension to file their pleadings and make disclosure, having missed two previous deadlines due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the venue change based on the balance of convenience and granted the respondents a final, peremptory extension to file their pleadings.

The complainant, a single mother of three teenaged sons, applied to rent a three-bedroom apartment.

The property manager lost her application and refused to allow her to reapply, citing a preference for 'ideal' families and stating that a family with three teenagers was not suitable for the unit.

The Human Rights Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal awarded $4,000 in general damages and ordered the respondents to cease and desist from refusing to rent to families with teenaged children.

The reprisal claim was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to compel the Respondent to produce certain documents over which the Respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal first determined that the Respondent's description of the documents was insufficient to establish privilege and ordered the documents to be produced for inspection by the Tribunal.

After inspecting the documents, the majority of the Tribunal found that legal advice privilege attached to some of the documents, as they were part of the continuum of communication between government officials and legal counsel regarding the de-listing of sex re-assignment surgery.

However, the Tribunal ordered the production of other documents or portions thereof where privilege was not established or had been waived.

A partial dissent would have ordered full production of two specific documents, finding that privilege had been waived.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding brought an interim motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator.

The complainant and the Commission argued that the adjudicator's interventions during the cross-examination of the unrepresented respondent created an appearance of partiality.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the limited interventions in a highly emotional hearing with unrepresented parties did not meet the threshold for disqualification under the reasonable person test.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to add Allan Brandston as a personal respondent to a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate the complainant's creed regarding a condominium Sabbath elevator.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Payne, finding there was reliable evidence on the record that could lead to a finding of liability against Mr. Brandston, and that he would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that a personal respondent should not be added when a corporate respondent is already a party, noting that the Code's provisions for adding parties do not restrict their application to corporate respondents.

The complainant, who suffers from a mental disorder, sought to rent a room in the respondent's rooming house.

After paying the first and last month's rent and receiving the keys, the complainant disclosed her disability to the respondent over the telephone.

The respondent subsequently imposed discriminatory conditions on her tenancy, including a requirement that she leave the house when other tenants had guests over.

The complainant reasonably terminated the agreement and sought the return of her money, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal found that the respondent infringed the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in general damages, $600 in special damages, and to post Human Rights Code cards in the rooming house.

The Commission and the Complainant brought a motion in writing to have the Tribunal decline to hear the testimony of three witnesses proposed by the Respondent.

The witnesses were to testify about the Complainant's past teacher evaluations and a job competition.

The moving parties argued the evidence was irrelevant and offered to have the Complainant's own testimony on these matters struck from the record.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it would be unfair to preclude the Respondent from calling rebuttal evidence after the moving parties had already led evidence and cross-examined on these matters.

The Tribunal also noted the evidence was relevant to the allegations of systemic discrimination.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedy for a complainant who was discriminated against when he was not hired for a full-time teaching position in 1982.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to adjust the complainant's pension credited service, credit him with sick leave days, and compensate him for OHIP premiums and lost income.

The Tribunal also awarded $35,000 in general damages, noting the significant stress and ongoing reminder of victimization the complainant experienced over a five-year period of underemployment, and included a component recognizing the substantial legal expenses incurred.

Pre-judgment interest was ordered on all monetary awards.

In the remedial phase of a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at Famous Players theatres, the Tribunal considered whether to lift a non-admittance policy for wheelchair users at the Uptown theatre pending its closure.

The Tribunal found it was functus officio regarding ordering interim renovations or extending the closure date.

However, the Tribunal ruled that the blanket ban on manual wheelchair users was an unjustified safety measure.

The Tribunal ordered the ban revoked subject to specific conditions, including limiting the number of wheelchair users per auditorium and requiring an implementation plan, while maintaining the ban for power wheelchairs and scooters due to evacuation risks.

The Commission brought a motion to exclude the testimony of three witnesses proposed by the respondent School Board, arguing their evidence was irrelevant, amounted to similar fact evidence, or went to a collateral fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Commission and Complainant had themselves introduced evidence on these very matters during the Complainant's examination-in-chief and re-examination.

The Tribunal held that natural justice and fairness entitled the Board to make full answer and defence to the case presented against it.

The Complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaints to claim general and liquidated damages for alleged harm to his medical condition caused by the denial of access to services, as well as legal fees.

The Respondents opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice due to delay and the Complainant's previous abandonment of these claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments for general and liquidated damages, finding that the Respondents failed to establish actual prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to amend the complaints to claim legal fees, as it lacks jurisdiction to award costs to a complainant under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant A.B. brought an urgent motion for an interim partial publication ban to protect their identity in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the termination of OHIP-funded services for gender transformation.

The Tribunal applied the Dagenais test and found that a partial publication ban was a reasonable alternate means to protect the complainant's privacy rights while limiting the expression rights of third parties as little as possible.

The motion was granted on an interim basis.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend several complaints to correct misnomers regarding the respondent's name and business aliases, and to add the ground of reprisal to one of the complaints.

The respondent did not attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the respondent would suffer no prejudice from the correction of misnomers and that the reprisal allegations were already set out in the original complaint and statement of facts.