HRTO 2006

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because its advisor could not locate a hotel room in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent of the other parties.

Additionally, the Commission requested an order directing the respondents to comply with a prior document production order.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the outstanding documents by May 11, 2006, warning that failure to do so could result in them being barred from introducing undisclosed documents under Rule 48.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability.

The complainant's job offer for a safety-sensitive position was withdrawn after he tested positive for marijuana during a pre-employment drug test.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the offer was withdrawn due to dishonesty, not disability, and that marijuana use without disability is not protected.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support a claim of discrimination based on perceived disability and that the dispute over the reason for the withdrawal required a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also declined to restrict the scope of the inquiry solely to the marijuana elements of the drug testing policy.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their motion for the production of a closed Commission file.

The respondents argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction to vary its interim procedural decision.

The Tribunal assumed, without deciding, that it might have common law jurisdiction to reconsider an interim decision, but found that none of the common law criteria for reconsideration were met.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed and solicited by the Chief Financial Officer of her employer during her probationary period, and subsequently dismissed for refusing his advances.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did engage in sexual harassment and solicitation, violating the Human Rights Code, and awarded $17,500 in general damages and damages for mental anguish.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the CEO, finding that the decision to terminate the complainant was made prior to the culminating incident of harassment, was based on poor sales performance, and was not tainted by discrimination.

The respondents brought a motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the Commission's pleadings relating to claims for unpaid overtime and vacation pay.

The respondents argued that these claims were raised for the first time more than three years after the complaint was filed, causing prejudice to their ability to defend against them.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the delay impaired the respondents' ability to answer the allegations and that it would be a breach of natural justice to require them to defend the claims.

The motion was granted and the impugned paragraphs were struck.

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

The respondent was represented by in-house counsel provided by the Regional Municipality of York.

The Tribunal held that while it could not award counsel fees for in-house counsel under the common law rule, it could award disbursements.

Although no actual disbursements were proven, the Tribunal found it had discretion to award nominal costs.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was not trivial or vexatious, but found the respondent suffered undue hardship due to the Commission's vacillation and reversal of its recommendation to refer the matter to a hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $500 in costs to the respondent.

The respondents brought a motion for the production of the entire contents of a closed Ontario Human Rights Commission file pertaining to a separate complaint made by the complainant against a different contractor.

The Commission had previously decided not to refer that complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to order the production of a closed, unreferred file.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the information in the closed file met the Wigmore test for privilege and ought to remain confidential to protect the integrity of the Commission's investigation and settlement processes.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation.

After several pre-hearing motions, the complainant's counsel was removed from the record and the complainant could not be located.

The Commission brought a motion to dispose of the complaint.

The respondent sought an order dismissing the complaint and awarding costs against the Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but declined to award costs, finding no evidence that the Commission acted improperly or that the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

The complainant alleged that her membership in the respondent association was terminated because she practices Falun Gong.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that Falun Gong constitutes a creed within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the respondents wilfully and intentionally discriminated against the complainant in the provision of services based on her creed.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $10,000 in general damages and $8,000 for mental anguish, and to implement anti-discrimination policies.