HRTO 2005

The Commission brought a motion to amend the Complaint and pleadings to correct the respondent's name and add allegations of sexual solicitation, reprisal for rejecting sexual advances, and general reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the amendments arose from the same factual transaction and would not cause incurable prejudice to the respondent, who did not participate in the motion.

The motion to amend the title of proceeding and the pleadings was granted.

The respondent City of Toronto brought motions seeking production of the complainant's medical records, related correspondence, income information, and an order compelling the complainant to undergo a physical examination of his knee by a doctor of the respondent's choosing.

The Tribunal granted the motions for production of the medical records, correspondence, and income information, finding they met the threshold of arguable relevance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for a physical examination, holding that unlike the courts, it lacks the express statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to order a party to submit to a medical examination without their consent.

The respondent Ontario requested that the Tribunal amend its previous reasons (2005 HRTO 5) to clarify that its use of the term 'disability' referred to both the complainant's mental disability and his status as a minor.

The Tribunal declined the request, noting that the Human Rights Code's definition of disability is exhaustive and does not include the status of being a minor.

Imputing such a meaning would be inconsistent with the Code and could materially affect the application of the Tribunal's reasons in future cases.

The parties reached a settlement in a human rights complaint involving a minor complainant and brought a written motion asking the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to issue an Order approving the Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to approve settlements or to appoint a litigation guardian or guardian of property for a minor.

The Tribunal held that such inherent parens patriae jurisdiction resides exclusively with the Superior Court of Justice, and the Children's Law Reform Act governs the payment of settlement funds exceeding $10,000 to a minor.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether a witness located in Nunavut should testify by video or telephone conferencing.

The Commission provided evidence that video conferencing would cost at least $1,895 and its technical compatibility could not be guaranteed without testing.

The Tribunal found that the substantial costs and uncertainties made video conferencing reasonably impracticable.

The Tribunal ordered that the witness be permitted to testify by telephone conferencing.

The Police Association of Ontario, Peel Regional Police Association, and Ontario Provincial Police Association Inc. brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the Tribunal in a human rights complaint regarding the strip-searching of transsexuals.

The Commission opposed the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the associations had a special contribution to make regarding occupational health and safety risks and potential gender-based discrimination affecting their members.

The intervention was limited to written submissions on the existing record.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed medical records produced by the complainant's treating physicians following a prior order.

The Tribunal determined that the documents were relevant to the proceedings, that their disclosure would not unduly breach the complainant's privacy, and ordered that the records be produced to all parties in their entirety.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to withdraw from active participation in the hearing of a human rights complaint, having reached a settlement with the corporate respondent.

The complainant opposed the withdrawal and brought a separate motion to amend her complaint to add grounds of race and racial harassment.

The Tribunal granted the Commission's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of process and that transitional issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal dismissed the complainant's motion to amend, finding the proposed amendment was brought too late, was based on weak hearsay evidence, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.