HRTO 2006

The respondent, General Motors Defence, brought a motion regarding a constitutional question and objected to the Attorney General of Ontario participating without prior notice.

The Tribunal held that section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act is mandatory and entitles the Attorney General to adduce evidence and make submissions on constitutional questions without requiring prior notice of intention to participate.

Alternatively, the Tribunal would have exercised its discretion to extend the time for the Attorney General to intervene.

The Tribunal invited submissions from the other parties regarding the respondent's alternative request for an adjournment.

The Attorney General of Ontario indicated an intention to intervene regarding a Notice of Constitutional Question delivered by the respondent.

The respondent objected to the intervention and asserted prejudice due to the late filing of written argument.

The Tribunal directed any party opposing the intervention or seeking an adjournment to file written submissions.

The Commission requested that the human rights complaint against the respondents be disposed of by way of a written hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to provide an affidavit detailing the steps taken to serve the respondents, who had not participated in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found the submitted affidavit lacked sufficient detail regarding dates, service particulars, and supporting documentation to confirm proper notice.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to file a further, more detailed affidavit before it would consider the request for a written hearing.

The complainant, a restaurant employee, alleged that a co-worker sexually harassed her by deliberately flicking her breast.

She reported the incident to management, who conducted an investigation.

The Tribunal found that the single incident constituted sexual harassment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the employer's investigation was seriously flawed and unreasonable, and that management engaged in reprisal against the complainant after she asserted her legal rights, ultimately leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages against the co-worker and the employer, as well as special damages for lost wages against the employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion requesting the Tribunal reopen a hearing on costs, alleging a breach of natural justice because it was not given adequate notice or the opportunity to call viva voce evidence regarding allegations against its staff.

The respondents argued the Tribunal was functus officio and that the Commission's appeal to the Divisional Court stayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that a breach of natural justice had occurred, which constituted an exception to the functus officio doctrine, allowing it to reopen the matter.

The Tribunal lifted the stay under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act but suspended the rehearing pending the outcome of the Divisional Court appeal.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada Corporation (GDLS-C) and CAW-Canada and its Local 27 sought intervenor status in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship by a defence contractor.

The Tribunal granted both requests for intervention on a limited basis, finding that GDLS-C had a unique perspective and specialized knowledge regarding multi-jurisdictional defence businesses, and noting that the immediate parties consented to or did not oppose the interventions.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the human rights complaint be disposed of by way of a written hearing.

Before considering the request, the Tribunal reviewed the record to confirm whether the respondents had been properly served with notice of the proceedings and the Commission's pleadings.

Finding inconsistencies and incomplete information regarding the addresses used and the courier deliveries, the Tribunal declined to proceed with a written hearing at this stage.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to re-serve the respondents and to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to effect service.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the complaint against Rénozone Express Inc. and Mario Labre proceed by way of a written hearing.

The corporate respondent had failed to participate in the proceedings to date, including an initial conference call, and neither respondent had filed pleadings.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to issue a Notice of Written Hearing pursuant to section 5.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, subject to any objections from the parties.

In a human rights complaint, the Tribunal removed three personal respondents on consent after the corporate respondent agreed to accept liability for their actions as employees under s. 45(1) of the Code.

A fourth personal respondent, Brandt, sought to be removed on the same terms, but the corporate respondent refused to concede he was an employee.

The Tribunal declined to remove Brandt at this stage.

The Tribunal also denied Brandt's request to adjourn upcoming hearing dates due to a work conflict, noting he had received ample notice.

In an ongoing hearing regarding allegations of sexual harassment and reprisal, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the Respondents' intention to call numerous witnesses.

The Tribunal provided guidance on the relevance of character evidence and similar fact evidence, noting that evidence of corporate character or the character of the personal respondents is irrelevant.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to clarify which aspects of the corporate respondent's anti-harassment policies it considers deficient, and directed the Respondents to subsequently revise their witness list and hearing time estimates.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a hearing to finalize the quantum of damages owed to the complainant following a 30-year legal process involving findings of racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment at the respondent's plant.

The parties had previously agreed to a quantum of $352,722.82, but the self-represented complainant subsequently refused to accept the funds, seeking instead to have the appellate court reconsider the entire case de novo.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside an appellate ruling and ordered the respondent to pay the agreed-upon amount, concluding that this payment fully satisfied the respondent's remedial obligations and terminated the proceedings.

The Commission requested that the human rights complaint be disposed of by way of a written hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the corporate respondent had not participated in the proceedings and that correspondence had been sent to the home address of its owner, who was in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to serve notice of the proceedings to the corporate respondent's last registered address and provide a Corporation Profile Report before considering the request for a written hearing.

In a human rights complaint challenging a pre-employment drug testing policy, the Commission sought production of documents regarding the respondent's drug testing and workplace incidents outside Ontario, as well as historical data prior to the policy's adoption.

The respondent objected, arguing the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to Ontario and the historical data is irrelevant, and requested a stay pending judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the stay and ordered production, finding the documents arguably relevant to whether the policy is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The complainant brought a motion to add her former employer, 621509 Ontario Inc. o/a Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep, as a respondent to her human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint only against the complainant's supervisor.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a party and found that the complaint alleged facts which, if true, could support a finding of liability against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also found that the corporate respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice, as it had participated in the Commission's investigation.

The motion was granted and the corporate respondent was added.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion for production of financial documents and documents relating to digital projectors from several respondent movie theatre companies.

The respondents had raised the defence of undue hardship regarding the accommodation of deaf patrons through captioning.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the respondents to produce consolidated and unconsolidated financial statements, tax returns, and certain bankruptcy and merger documents, finding them arguably relevant to assessing the defence of undue hardship.

The third party consultants appointed to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's orders regarding workplace discrimination and harassment prevention (WDHP) at the Toronto East Detention Centre submitted their First Quarterly Report of 2006.

The consultants recommended three modifications to the Tribunal's previous rulings: allowing managers to take action on WDHP matters they witness directly, permitting external investigators to handle multiple complaints simultaneously, and enabling senior managers to conduct initial fact-finding for WDHP complaints.

The Tribunal adopted the recommendations with certain modifications, emphasizing the need for management accountability and proper training while ensuring the protection of complainants' rights.

In an interim decision during a human rights hearing alleging racial profiling by a police officer, the adjudicator ordered the respondents to produce the officer's employment record, original notebook, and human rights training manuals.

The adjudicator also qualified Professor Norman Scot Wortley as an expert witness on racial profiling in the criminal justice system and police investigations, finding his proposed evidence relevant and necessary to provide context for the tribunal.

The complainants, minors with autism spectrum disorder, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the definition of 'age' in subsection 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The definition restricted age discrimination protections to individuals aged 18 or older.

The complainants argued this exclusion violated their equality rights under subsection 15(1) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the definition of age in the Code discriminated against children by denying them access to the human rights system, thereby marginalizing them and treating them as less worthy.

The Tribunal further held that this infringement was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal declared the definition of age in subsection 10(1) of the Code to be of no force or effect for the purpose of the complaints, allowing the complainants to amend their pleadings to include discrimination based on age.

The Tribunal issued a final decision disposing of a human rights complaint based on a settlement reached between the parties on March 1, 2006.

In an earlier decision, the Tribunal found the settlement to be final and binding, subject to any submissions from the parties.

As no submissions were received by the deadline, the Tribunal confirmed the settlement and disposed of the complaint accordingly.

The Commission and the Complainant sought to rescind an order disposing of a human rights complaint, arguing it was issued in error before the Respondents had fully complied with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal rescinded the order, finding there was no valid consent to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

However, the Tribunal found the settlement agreement remained binding under section 43 of the Human Rights Code and declined to add a new respondent, issue an interim compliance order, or award legal expenses, noting that enforcement mechanisms were available elsewhere.