HRTO 2005

The respondent in a human rights complaint sought to bring preliminary motions to strike out portions of the pleadings and to require notice to a third party, Manulife Financial.

Following a prehearing conference, the Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the exchange of motion materials and the hearing of the motions.

The Tribunal also ordered that Manulife Financial be provided with notice of the proceedings and copies of the relevant materials, allowing it an opportunity to seek status to participate in the motions.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour against the respondent restaurant and its managers.

During cross-examination on the second day of the hearing, the complainant admitted to lying during his evidence-in-chief regarding his mitigation efforts and subsequent employment.

Following an adjournment, the Commission withdrew from carriage of the complaint and the complainant withdrew his complaint.

The Tribunal formally dismissed the complaint and reserved the respondents' right to speak to costs.

The complainant suffered a minor workplace injury and was advised by her doctor to take three days off work.

The respondents terminated her employment, stating they could not afford to have an employee off sick.

The respondents failed to participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the termination constituted discrimination on the basis of disability under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate and personal respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay general and special damages.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, a senior managerial employee, subjected her to a pattern of sexual harassment and discrimination over a two-year period.

The respondent failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included unwelcome touching, leering, and inappropriate comments, constituted gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages and expenses, and ordered the respondent to attend human rights training.

During a hearing for a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment, the complainant admitted under cross-examination to lying about his post-employment work history.

The respondents moved for an adjournment sine die to consider their position and potential motions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the seriousness of lying under oath and the need for all parties, including the Tribunal itself, to consider potential actions such as contempt proceedings or reporting the matter for perjury investigation.

The respondents brought a motion seeking further particulars and an order striking certain paragraphs of the Commission's pleadings in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding that under the Tribunal's Rules, the respondents ought to have filed their pleadings and made disclosure prior to bringing preliminary objections.

The Tribunal directed the parties to complete the pleading and disclosure process before raising further preliminary issues.

The complainants alleged that Ontario discriminated against them on the basis of sex and disability by de-listing sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal found that Gender Identity Disorder is a disability and that the de-listing had a disproportionate adverse impact on three of the complainants who had already begun their transition program at the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic.

The Tribunal ordered Ontario to fund the surgery for these three complainants as an interim remedy, finding that the grandparenting provision in the amending regulation was not a reasonable accommodation.

The applicants, who were non-parties implicated in allegations of harassment and discrimination, sought a stay or adjournment of the Tribunal's proceedings pending a judicial review of a previous decision that denied them standing.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and concluded that the circumstances were not exceptional and did not warrant a stay.

The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience favoured the complainant, who would suffer prolonged harm from further delays, and that any potential harm to the applicants' reputations was not irreparable.

The motion for a stay or adjournment was denied.

The respondents sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of complaints alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's decision to refer the matter to a hearing was driven by a policy analyst's inappropriate focus on the respondents' lack of formal policies rather than evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith, and that the respondents suffered undue hardship.

Costs of $100,000 were awarded against the Commission.

The complainants, former employees of the respondents, alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and reprisal.

The female complainant testified to ongoing sexual comments and solicitations by the personal respondent.

After she confronted him and filed a police report, she was dismissed.

The male complainant, who supported her, was also dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the complainants' evidence, finding that the respondents violated the Human Rights Code through sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages to both complainants, and ordered the personal respondent to implement a comprehensive workplace harassment policy.

The corporate respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the pleadings filed by the Commission and the complainant.

The respondent argued that allegations relating to events after the date of the original complaint, allegations not raised in the original complaint, and allegations in the complainant's pleadings that contradicted or added to the Commission's pleadings should be struck.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned material facts formed part of the continuum of events of the complaint, and that the complainant has independent party status under the Code to file her own pleadings.

The Tribunal issued interim rulings regarding a third-party report on the selection of external investigators for workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal approved the consultants' criteria for selecting investigators and rejected the Ministry's and Commission's requests for a 'balanced' roster of complainant-side and respondent-side lawyers.

The Tribunal also ruled that draft investigation reports should only be provided to the parties to the complaint, not exclusively to the Ministry, and that investigators should not include recommendations in their final reports to protect the integrity of the fact-finding process.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision extending the timeline for the Commission and Complainants to provide notice to relevant school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal acknowledged the logistical challenges and privacy concerns raised by counsel regarding the original 72-hour deadline set in a previous order.

The new deadline for dispatching notices and appropriate disclosure was set to October 28, 2005, with subsequent deadlines established for written submissions from the school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal considered whether to add school boards and bargaining agents as parties to human rights complaints alleging failure to accommodate autistic children in schools.

The Tribunal directed the Commission and Complainants' counsel to give notice to the school boards and bargaining agents forthwith, and requested written submissions from those entities on whether and to what extent they should participate in the proceedings.

In a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on case management.

The Tribunal declined to bifurcate the hearing strictly between liability and remedy, but proposed hearing the reprisal claim first.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide further particulars regarding when and to whom the complainant raised her concerns, and ordered the respondents to provide a more detailed witness list.

The Tribunal heard several procedural motions regarding the examination of witnesses and disclosure of documents following an order permitting the Commission to amend the complaint to include allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal provided specific directions on which party would lead the examination of various witnesses, including union employees, police officers, and contractors.

The Tribunal also ordered that all documents related to the reprisal allegations be disclosed forthwith, ruled that undisclosed documents could not be introduced during cross-examination, required privileged documents to be categorized, and determined that new allegations raised in testimony would only be considered for credibility purposes.

The corporate respondent brought a motion seeking production of the complainant's clinical notes and records regarding her mental and psychological stability, arguing her erratic behaviour went to her credibility.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no nexus between the sexual harassment and reprisal complaint and the requested medical records.

The complainant had not put her psychological state in issue, making the records irrelevant.

The Tribunal noted that credibility and reliability of testimony would be assessed in the normal course without granting a fishing licence into the complainant's private life.

The complainant, a customer sales representative, was struck by a vehicle during her lunch break and suffered injuries.

She provided her employer with a doctor's note stating she could not return to work until further notice.

The employer, frustrated by staff shortages, demanded she attend a meeting shortly after the accident, during which her manager diminished her work and acted hostile.

The employer subsequently terminated her employment without seeking further medical information.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer failed to accommodate her disability and recklessly terminated her, causing mental anguish.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages and mental anguish, plus $301.50 in special damages for lost wages.

During a human rights hearing regarding workplace discrimination and harassment, a motion for standing was brought by two non-party employees whose conduct was the subject of evidence adduced by the complainant.

The applicants sought standing to cross-examine witnesses and defend their interests, arguing that the evidence might negatively impact their employment or reputations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicants had not infringed the complainant's rights and thus were not parties under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that granting standing to anyone whose conduct is questioned in evidence would cause undue delay and chaos, and that the applicants' interests could be adequately addressed if they were called as witnesses.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged discrimination and harassment based on race, colour, and disability by his former employer and its directing mind.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had quit his employment prior to a car accident, dismissing the disability claim.

However, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent uttered a racial slur to the complainant when he returned his tools, violating s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the corporate respondent deliberately withheld the complainant's final paperwork and part of his earnings, constituting racial harassment under s. 5(2).

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $7,000 in general damages and mental anguish, and to complete human rights training.