HRTO 2007

The respondent, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), brought a motion to add Access Security Professionals Incorporated (ASP) as a respondent to a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling by an ASP security guard at an LCBO store.

ASP opposed the motion.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a party, finding that the allegations could support a finding that ASP violated the Human Rights Code and that ASP failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to its ability to make full answer and defence.

The motion was granted and ASP was added as a respondent.

The Commission and the Complainant requested the removal of two respondents, Sheri Allison and Casa Industries, due to issues with providing effective notice.

The Tribunal granted the request, leaving Michael Poley as the sole respondent.

As Poley had received notice but failed to participate, the Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed by way of a written hearing to determine liability and remedy, subject to Poley's right to object by a specified date.

The respondents (except one) brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint due to delay and prejudice, arguing that one respondent was medically unable to participate.

The Commission sought to introduce video surveillance evidence of the respondent and to cross-examine his physician on her affidavit.

The Tribunal ruled that the video surveillance evidence was admissible and permitted the Commission to cross-examine the physician, adjourning the hearing to allow for the cross-examination.

The complainant alleged that the respondents, who were shareholders and oversaw operations at her workplace, subjected her to a pattern of sexual harassment and discrimination.

The respondents failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' unwelcome sexual advances, comments, and physical conduct violated the Human Rights Code and caused the complainant to involuntarily resign.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant $15,000 in general damages, $5,000 for mental anguish, and $8,555.67 for lost wages, and ordered the respondents to attend anti-discrimination training.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a written hearing in a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

The Tribunal found that proper notice had not been provided to the estate of a deceased personal respondent, nor had the Commission shown how effective notice was given to the respondent business, a dissolved partnership.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to provide evidence of proper notice or request the removal of the respondents before the request for a written hearing could be considered.

The complainant, a bartender, alleged she was discriminated against and terminated because of her pregnancy.

After disclosing her pregnancy, she faced repeated questioning about her intentions to continue working, pressure to switch to less lucrative shifts, and negative comments from management.

She was subsequently terminated under the pretext of a false accusation of theft.

The corporate respondent's owner failed to investigate her internal complaint of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the respondents violated the Human Rights Code by discriminating against the complainant on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

The respondents were ordered to pay general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages, tips, and maternity/parental benefits.

The respondent employer brought a motion for the production of the complainant's medical records relating to her asthma, as well as records of Workers Compensation, Welfare, and Unemployment Insurance payments.

The respondent also sought an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion for production, limiting the medical records to the period from five years before the complaint onward, and adjourned the matter sine die to allow for the production of the documents.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to dismiss an application for costs made by a successful personal respondent, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 41(4) of the Human Rights Code because the complaint was sustained against other respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Commission's motion, finding that the discretion to award costs under section 41(4) applies whenever a complaint against a specific person is dismissed, regardless of whether complaints against other respondents in the same proceeding were sustained.

The complainant, a Black woman, was detained by a store security guard for allegedly stealing a bra.

A Peel Regional Police officer was called to investigate.

During the investigation, the officer asked if the complainant spoke English, called her a 'fucking foreigner', threatened to take her to jail, and subjected her to a heightened and prolonged investigation despite weak evidence.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the officer and the police service discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race in the provision of a service.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and ordered the police service to develop a specific anti-racial profiling directive and provide comprehensive training to its officers.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues arising from the Complainant's Reply, which raised new arguments including a constitutional challenge to the definition of 'age' in the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the Respondents leave to file Supplementary Responses to address the new issues.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Complainant's draft Notice of Constitutional Question did not comply with section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act and directed the Complainant to file an amended Notice using Form 4F of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The complainant, a black Christian from southern Sudan, alleged discrimination in the provision of services by a butcher at a hallal meat store.

The adjudicator found that the butcher initiated a verbal altercation regarding religion and ethnicity, which escalated into a physical attack with a meat cleaver.

The adjudicator concluded that the butcher discriminated against the complainant on the basis of creed and ethnic origin contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was held jointly and severally liable under section 45(1) of the Code.

The complainant was awarded $10,000 in general damages and $5,000 for mental distress.

The respondents brought a motion seeking the production of two groups of documents from the Commission: investigation materials from a related complaint against a different respondent, and internal Commission documents regarding the handling of the present complaint.

The Commission consented to the production of the first group, subject to a Tribunal order due to FIPPA restrictions.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the first group as they were arguably relevant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the internal documents, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commission's decision to refer the complaint and that internal opinions were not relevant to the hearing de novo.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and its Director of Legal Services brought a motion seeking relief regarding a prior interim decision, arguing it could be understood as making adverse findings of fact and invading personal privacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, clarifying that the prior decision merely referred to allegations for procedural purposes, did not make findings of fact, and gave rise to no adverse inferences against the Commission or its Director.

The Commission brought a motion to add 'marital status' as a ground of discrimination to a complaint alleging the complainant was terminated from her employment because her common-law spouse was HIV positive.

The respondents objected to the amendment, arguing it was too late and unfair.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the amendment relied on the same facts already alleged and the respondents failed to demonstrate any real prejudice.

The complainant, who suffered from depression and anxiety, took a medical leave of absence from her employment.

The respondents failed to promptly provide her with a Record of Employment and benefit cheques, and subsequently terminated her employment while she was awaiting medical clearance to return to work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $12,945.84 for lost wages, and $198.90 for lost benefits, and to implement public interest remedies including posting Code Cards and distributing the Commission's disability policy.

The Commission, with the consent of the complainant, requested a written hearing after the respondents failed to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the steps taken to serve the respondents and found that they had received proper notice.

Pursuant to section 5.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Rule 6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed by way of a written hearing, subject to the respondents' right to object within a specified timeframe.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a university hiring process, the Commission requested further particulars and production of documents midway through the hearing.

The requested documents included faculty turnover rates, staffing complement, other competition processes, post-hiring evaluations of the successful candidate, and submissions to the Maclean's university survey.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or that the request was made too late without explanation.

The Tribunal also declined to require that notice of a summons be given to a witness under section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing instead that the summoned documents be produced to counsel.

The complainant, a receptionist at an insurance brokerage, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and required two surgeries.

She informed her employer of her diagnosis and provided medical notes indicating she needed a six-week recovery period.

While she was recovering, the employer hired a permanent replacement.

When the complainant returned to work, she was terminated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer failed to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship and unlawfully terminated her employment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $20,000 in general damages for loss of dignity and mental anguish, $3,006.40 in special damages for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training.

The Commission initiated a complaint alleging a breach of settlement by the respondents.

Ms. Glover, the complainant in the original settled matter, brought a motion seeking to be added as a party complainant, to add the Commission as a respondent, and for other relief due to the Commission's alleged failure to enforce the settlement.

The Tribunal declined to entertain the requests directed at the Commission's conduct, noting its focus is on determining the breach of settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction to add Ms. Glover as a complainant or to award monetary remedies to her as an intervenor.

The complainant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability, a fractured scapula sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

After requesting a medical leave of absence, her employment was terminated ostensibly for misconduct, despite no prior complaints.

The respondents failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the termination was at least in part related to her disability, breaching section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay special and general damages.