HRTO 2008

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to stay or dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, arguing that the complainant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal constituted an abuse of process.

The respondents also sought the recusal of the adjudicator for alleged bias and requested to examine the complainant and his counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal denied the request to examine counsel, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion to stay or dismiss the complaint, finding that the human rights and civil proceedings involved different parties, legal issues, and remedies, and that the respondents failed to demonstrate undue prejudice or bad faith that would warrant an extraordinary stay of proceedings.

The Ottawa Police Services Board and individual officers requested an order to sever two human rights complaints alleging racial profiling during traffic stops, which had been consolidated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal determined that while it is not bound by the Commission's decision to consolidate, the complaints share sufficient commonalities in facts, issues, and policies to warrant being heard together.

The request to sever the complaints was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that her former employer and holistic medicine instructor subjected her to years of forced sexual assaults, sexual harassment, and reprisals.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence of forced sexual assault to be unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, implausibilities, and the emergence of repressed memories only during her testimony.

However, the Tribunal found that a sexual relationship did occur during the complainant's employment, which was unwelcome and constituted sexual harassment and improper sexual solicitations under ss. 7(2) and 7(3)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The allegations of gender discrimination and reprisal were dismissed.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages.

The complainants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to add the Ministry of Education and various individuals as full party respondents to their human rights complaints regarding special education.

The Tribunal reviewed its new reconsideration powers under the amended Human Rights Code and its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal determined that while interim decisions disposing of central issues can be subject to reconsideration, the complainants failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other compelling factors to justify reconsidering the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Commission referred a human rights complaint to the Tribunal under s. 33(6) of the Human Rights Code after the respondent police board refused to produce certain documents during the investigation.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation during an arrest and detention.

The Commission brought a motion seeking production of various documents, including officer notes, video logs, personnel files, and arrest statistics, prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Tribunal held that while preliminary matters should generally not be raised before hearing briefs are filed, the specific circumstances warranted severing the disclosure requirement from the hearing brief filing.

The Tribunal ordered the production of arguably relevant documents, including prior complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against the involved officers and relevant video monitoring information, but denied overbroad requests for complete personnel files and statistical data on arrests.

In an interim decision regarding consolidated human rights complaints, the Tribunal identified the remaining procedural and substantive issues in dispute, including allegations of bias against a previous adjudicator, abuse of process by the Commission, and requests for production.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare submissions on whether the previous adjudicator's decisions finally determined certain issues and scheduled further hearing dates to address these preliminary matters.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board and several individuals, the Tribunal considered whether to remove certain personal respondents.

The Commission advised it would not proceed against four individuals, who were subsequently removed.

The Tribunal then analyzed whether to remove a fifth individual, a superintendent, applying factors such as corporate vicarious liability and whether her individual conduct was a central issue.

Finding no compelling reason to keep her as a party and no prejudice in her removal, the Tribunal removed her.

The Tribunal declined to remove a sixth individual whose conduct was central to the allegations.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability sought an order compelling the complainant to produce documents related to his civil action against his long-term disability insurer.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to whether the respondents met their duty to accommodate the complainant under the Human Rights Code.

The issue in the insurance litigation was entitlement to benefits, which is distinct from the duty to accommodate.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Commission requested a pre-hearing ruling to admit an email sent by respondents' counsel to the Commission, which contained a communication to the client regarding potential termination of the complainant.

The Commission also sought to amend its pleadings to add a new remedy.

The Tribunal ruled that the email was inadmissible because it was not relevant to the issues in the complaint and its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The request to amend the pleadings was also denied as the proposed remedy was unrelated to the original complaint and sought only to render the contested document admissible.

Following a pre-hearing conference call, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision establishing a process to address preliminary objections raised by the respondents.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal should not hear the matter or that some allegations should be excluded.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant and the Commission to clarify the specific actions alleged to constitute discrimination, and set a timetable for written submissions, documentary evidence, and a one-day oral hearing to determine the preliminary issues.

The complainant, a student with disabilities, filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board and several individuals failed to accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal denied the complainant's request to add another teacher as a personal respondent, finding no meaningful procedural or substantive benefit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' objection to the scope of the Commission's statement of facts, ruling that the new allegations formed part of the continuum of events related to the alleged failure to accommodate.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the complainant's request to file his own statement of facts, issues, and remedy, as the respondents demonstrated no prejudice.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed the consolidation of complaints and bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Commission lacked the authority to combine a newly referred reprisal complaint with a main complaint already before the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal exercised its own power to consolidate the proceedings to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring personal respondents would not face liability for the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases to expedite the process and provided further case management directions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

The complainant, a tennis instructor with epilepsy, alleged discrimination in employment by the respondents.

After experiencing seizures at work, the respondents required him to disclose his condition to all staff and private clients, and criticized him for not disclosing it upon hiring.

The respondents also cited his failure to deal openly with his epilepsy as a reason for not rehiring him for the following season.

The Tribunal found that the disclosure requirements and the consideration of his epilepsy in the rehiring decision constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in general damages and ordered public interest remedies, including training and the creation of an anti-discrimination policy.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to withdraw from the proceedings after reaching a settlement with the respondents.

The complainant opposed the withdrawal unless the Commission was directed to take further steps to assist her in the Tribunal's processes.

The Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw, finding that its public interest mandate had been satisfied and that no special directions were necessary to minimize prejudice to the complainant.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an extension of time to file its hearing brief and an order for production of documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the extension request, finding that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasons why the requested documents were necessary prior to filing its brief and noted the Commission's delay in bringing the request.

The Commission's hearing brief remained due on the originally scheduled date, while a schedule was set for submissions on the production request.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an adjournment of a case management conference scheduled for 77 consolidated complaints regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Commission's lead counsel requested the adjournment because he would be on a long-planned vacation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not reschedule initial conference calls without the written consent of all parties, and that a party's desire to have particular counsel attend cannot justify an adjournment.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the respondents failed to file a response to the Commission's pleadings and failed to attend a pre-hearing conference call in a timely manner.

The respondents subsequently argued the Commission's pleadings lacked sufficient particulars but did not file a proper motion.

The Tribunal declined to issue an interim decision on the sufficiency of the pleadings as no proper request was before it.

The Tribunal issued case management directions, requiring the respondents to provide a referenced letter and directing the parties to prepare witness lists for a further scheduling conference call.

The respondents sought to bring a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the complainant's Statement of Facts prior to filing their own responding pleadings.

The Tribunal found the proposed motion to be premature, noting that preliminary and procedural objections should generally not be brought prior to a party filing its pleadings and making disclosure.

The respondents were ordered to file their responding pleadings.