HRTO 2005

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the Tribunal proceed by way of a written hearing to determine the merits of a complaint alleging discrimination based on creed (Falun Gong).

The respondents had failed to participate in the proceedings, including missing conference calls and failing to file pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that a written hearing would balance natural justice with procedural efficiency, and issued a Notice of Written Hearing giving the respondents a final opportunity to object.

The Commission requested that the Tribunal proceed by way of written hearing and waive the requirement to file pleadings and provide disclosure, as the respondents had failed to participate in the Initial Conference Call or the Commission's investigation.

The Tribunal ordered that a Notice of Written Hearing be issued, allowing the respondents an opportunity to object.

However, the Tribunal declined to waive the requirement for pleadings and disclosure, emphasizing that the referral commences a de novo statutory adjudication process and the respondents are entitled to know the case to be met and the remedies sought before making submissions on whether a written hearing is appropriate.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that a human rights complaint be disposed of by way of a written hearing after the respondent failed to participate in the initial conference call or file pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that while the Human Rights Code requires a hearing, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits written hearings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Written Hearing, providing the respondent an opportunity to object and setting out the evidentiary requirements for an undefended written hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted the Commission's request on consent to withdraw the complaint against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal also ruled that the Commission's constitutional challenge to section 20(3) of the Human Rights Code would not be determined as a preliminary matter, but would be addressed after the hearing on the merits if necessary.

Hearing dates were scheduled.

The complainant alleged that he was terminated from his employment at a clothing recycling warehouse because he claimed workers' compensation benefits for a back injury sustained at work.

The respondents denied the injury occurred and claimed the complainant quit voluntarily.

The Tribunal found that the complainant did suffer a workplace injury and that the individual respondent terminated his employment after learning of the WSIB claim, issuing a Record of Employment falsely stating the complainant had quit.

The Tribunal concluded this constituted discrimination because of disability under the Human Rights Code and awarded $10,000 in general damages and $5,146 in special damages for lost wages.

The respondents brought a motion for non-suit at the conclusion of the Commission's case, arguing the evidence failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the provision of a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The adjudicator exercised his discretion to allow the respondents to bring the motion without electing to forego calling evidence.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the motion on its merits, finding that the testimony, if believed, provided a sufficient nexus between the events complained of and a prohibited ground of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

The complainant sought interim orders regarding the handling of workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal clarified that all complaints made at the Centre must be subject to external investigation.

The Tribunal ruled that the third party consultants, rather than the Compliance Committee, are responsible for formulating recommendations regarding the external investigation process, including the roster of eligible investigators and selection criteria.

The complainant's request to order the reprocessing of previously commenced investigations was denied.

The complainant, a former dental assistant, alleged that her employer, a dentist, sexually harassed her, made unwelcome sexual advances, and engaged in reprisals when she rejected his advances and resigned.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included unwanted touching, persistent personal phone calls, and retaliatory actions such as withholding her Record of Employment and sending fabricated dental bills to a collection agency, constituted sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant $36,354 in total damages, including compensation for loss of right, reprisal, mental anguish, and lost wages, and ordered the respondent to attend anti-discrimination training.

The Commission and the Complainant sought the appointment of a monitor to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's previous interim order requiring the respondent transit commission to provide reliable accommodation.

The respondent opposed the appointment, arguing it was an improper delegation of authority.

The Tribunal found that a monitor was necessary to expedite the interim order and appointed a former Chair of the Tribunal as Monitor, with authority to deal with the parties and oversee the planning of educational seminars and audits.

During the hearing of a human rights complaint, respondents' counsel conceded to breaching the rule in Browne v. Dunn by failing to put contradictory evidence to the complainant and a witness during cross-examination.

The Tribunal ruled that the complainant could return to the witness stand to respond to the contradictory testimony.

However, the Tribunal declined to recall the other witness, who had been inappropriately followed and harassed by one of the respondents during a recess.

Instead, the Tribunal held that the breach regarding the witness's testimony would be addressed by discounting the weight of the respondent's contradictory evidence.

Two Black employees filed human rights complaints alleging they were subjected to racial discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and discriminatory termination by their employer.

The complainants alleged that the new vice president made racist comments, tolerated racial graffiti, and fired them because of their race.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints, finding the complainants' evidence lacked credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the terminations were based on poor performance, insubordination, and inappropriate behaviour towards coworkers and customers, and that the employer took appropriate steps to address workplace graffiti.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion seeking an order that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to find that section 2(9) of the respondent's Operating Agreement violates the Human Rights Code, based on a prior Court of Appeal decision regarding interjurisdictional immunity.

The complainant opposed the motion, arguing that all evidence should be heard before determining jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding that it must fully understand the Operating Agreement and hear from all witnesses before deciding whether the Code applies and should be read down.

During a hearing on the merits of a human rights complaint, the complainant testified that his income had declined due to alleged reprisals by the respondents.

The respondents brought a motion seeking an order directing the complainant to produce his tax returns and authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to release his tax records from 1995 to 2004.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the tax records were arguably relevant to the complainant's allegations of improper interference with his ability to earn an income, and ordered the complainant to execute the necessary authorization and produce his 2004 tax return.

The parties sought clarification of the Tribunal's 2002 implementation orders regarding systemic remedies for a racially poisoned workplace at the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry argued that the independent consultants appointed to develop and oversee anti-racism training were exceeding their mandate by proposing pilot projects, monitoring compliance, and addressing racism towards inmates.

The Tribunal rejected the Ministry's narrow interpretation, confirming that the consultants have broad authority to design and implement a comprehensive change plan to eradicate workplace racism.

The Tribunal also denied the Ministry's motion to call an expert witness to challenge the consultants' proposal, granted limited intervenor standing to the union, and extended the timeline for completing the change process to the end of 2009.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a pre-hearing conference to address procedural matters in multiple combined complaints regarding autism services.

The Tribunal confirmed changes in representation, combined newly referred complaints with the existing groups, and established a schedule for the production of disclosure.

The Tribunal also reserved dates for the hearing on the merits and a constitutional question, while encouraging the parties to continue cooperating in the disclosure process.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The respondents brought a motion requesting the Adjudicator to review his own earlier decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to review its own decision under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Procedures Act because the rules under section 25(1) do not deal with the matter.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the order sought, as the motion was brought too late in the proceeding after the complainant and the Commission had closed their case.

The Tribunal heard four motions regarding complaints filed by children with autism alleging discrimination by Ontario in the provision of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) services.

Ontario moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims were based on an age under 18, which is excluded from the Code's definition of age.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints and the constitutional challenge to the age definition.

Ontario's alternative motion to stay the proceedings pending related Superior Court decisions was also denied.

The Commission and Complainants moved for substantive interim relief to compel Ontario to fund IBI treatment pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied this motion, ruling it lacked statutory authority under the Code or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to grant interlocutory injunctive relief.

Finally, the Tribunal determined on its own motion that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor complainants.

The complainant, a Native single mother, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on ancestry and family status when she attempted to rent an apartment.

The adjudicator found that the respondent landlord made derogatory comments about Native people and refused to accept her deposit after learning she was Native and a single mother.

The tribunal held that the respondents violated the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $9,000 in general damages and $100 in special damages, and to undergo human rights training.

The respondent, Kimberly-Clark Inc., brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had disclosed that he was acting as a non-witness consultant for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Manulife Financial, a company that provided services to the respondent and whose actions were implicated in the human rights complaint.

The adjudicator granted the recusal motion, finding that his inability to provide full details of his consulting arrangement due to solicitor-client privilege, combined with the potential need to rule on Manulife's status in the proceedings, established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent's request for an order directing the appointment of a specific type of substitute adjudicator was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.