HRTO 2004

The moving party brought a preliminary motion, supported by the complainant, to allow a witness residing in Nunavut to testify by telephone conference call.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that the witness's credibility was in issue and that her evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the responding party would not be significantly prejudiced by the electronic taking of evidence, given the high costs and disruption of requiring the witness to travel to Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the evidence be taken by video conference if reasonably practicable, or otherwise by telephone.

The respondent, Dofasco Inc., sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was made in bad faith and that the Commission acted irresponsibly in its post-referral conduct.

The Tribunal also found that the long-term disability allegation, which was dismissed as an abuse of process, caused undue hardship to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to pay $210,000 in costs to the respondent pursuant to subsection 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay the human rights complaints, alleging that the Commission's investigation was flawed, biased, and inadequate.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that its hearing is de novo.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal found that even a flawed investigation does not deprive it of the ability to conduct a hearing unless it results in an abuse of process, and there was no evidence that the respondents were prevented from defending the case.

The respondent movie theatre chain brought a motion to adjourn the combined hearing of three human rights complaints regarding the lack of captioning in theatres.

The respondent argued the hearing should be delayed until new, related complaints filed by one of the complainants against other major theatre chains were referred to the Tribunal, to ensure an industry-wide resolution.

The complainants and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing prejudice from delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without the other major exhibitors could lead to a multiplicity of proceedings and unfairness, and noted that the complainant herself had generated some of the delay by filing new complaints.

The Tribunal also removed two personal respondents on consent.

The respondents brought a motion on consent to correct the spelling of the corporate and personal respondents' names in the complaint and title of proceeding, and to remove the personal respondent as a party.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, amending the corporate respondent's name to Universal Studios Canada Inc. and removing the personal respondent as a party.

The Office of the Worker Adviser (OWA) brought a motion for intervenor status in a human rights complaint alleging that the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against the complainant by denying benefits because he received Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits.

The OWA sought full participatory rights or amicus curiae status to provide expertise on workers' compensation law.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no statutory authority to add a non-party as a full party, and that the OWA's proposed amicus intervention was unnecessary because the Ontario Human Rights Commission was already a party with the statutory mandate and expertise to represent the public interest and could adduce any necessary evidence from the OWA as a witness.

Following a decision on remedy, the respondents requested that the interest rate be set at 9%.

The adjudicator initially issued a direction setting the rate at 9%, but subsequently concluded this was an error as he was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to substantively change the original decision, which ordered interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.

The adjudicator also held he could not revoke a $10,000 award even with the consent of the parties, noting that such relief must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The complainants, who are deaf, alleged that the respondent movie theatre chain failed to provide captioning services.

The respondent brought motions to combine the complaints, adjourn the hearing, and postpone its disclosure obligations, while one complainant brought a motion to amend his complaint to add an allegation of reprisal based on an e-mail sent by the respondent to advocacy groups.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motions, noting the likelihood of related complaints being referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the e-mail did not name the complainant and constituted lobbying rather than a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that his landlords, a brother and sister, subjected him to severe racial harassment and discrimination over a period of years, culminating in his eviction.

The respondents repeatedly used racial slurs and made false accusations against him.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct constituted harassment and created a poisoned environment in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $415 in special damages, and the surviving respondent was ordered to attend anti-discrimination training and implement a human rights policy.

The complainant, a probationary police constable, alleged that her coach officer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status.

She claimed he created a sexualized work environment through inappropriate comments and told her she had to choose between her family and her career.

The Tribunal found that while the complainant raised a prima facie case on some allegations, the respondent's direct contradictions, the delay in raising the allegations, and the presence of other significant workplace tensions undermined the complainant's credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the complainant failed to establish her case on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a child with autism, brought a motion before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking interim injunctive relief to reinstate funding for his intensive behavioural intervention therapy.

Concurrently, the complainant and others obtained an interim interim mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice reinstating the same funding pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought was identical to that granted by the Court.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the factual underpinning for the urgency and irreparable harm no longer existed, and declined to decide the abstract question of its jurisdiction to grant such relief.

Two female employees filed human rights complaints alleging sexual solicitation and harassment by the male co-owner of a variety store.

The adjudicator found that the respondent repeatedly subjected the complainants and other female staff to unwelcome sexual comments, physical touching, and propositions, creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's denials and conspiracy theories were rejected as implausible, while the complainants' evidence was found credible and corroborated by similar fact evidence from other former employees.

The tribunal held the respondent and the partnership jointly and severally liable, awarding general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and ordering public interest remedies including human rights training.

During a hearing, the Commission and the Complainant objected to the late introduction of documents by the Respondent relating to a job competition.

The moving parties argued that the late disclosure violated the Tribunal's Rules, constituted an abuse of process, and prejudiced their case.

The Tribunal ruled that the documents were relevant and admissible, finding no deliberate concealment by the Respondent.

The Tribunal held that any potential prejudice could be remedied by allowing the Commission and Complainant to recall witnesses to testify about the documents.

The complainant, a single mother, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of family status by refusing to rent her an apartment because she had a nine-year-old daughter.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondents' refusal to rent the apartment constituted discrimination under section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also held that asking for the age of prospective co-occupants on a rental application form is prima facie discrimination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,230 in special damages and $5,000 in general damages, and to remove the age-related question from their application forms.