Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Natalie Hyman Applicant
-and-
Health Holdings Worldwide Inc. o/a Regency Fitness Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: December 9, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2448 Indexed as: Hyman v. Health Holdings Worldwide
1This is an Application filed on November 10, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of sex in employment. She also alleges reprisal.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Order directing that the applicant and an employee of the respondent take lie detector tests. Presumably, the applicant wishes to have the results of the tests entered as evidence.
3The leading authority on the admissibility of polygraph evidence is R. v. Béland, 1987 CanLII 27 (S.C.C.), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398. In that case it was held that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible in evidence.
4In my view, given the Supreme Court’s decision, it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to make the order requested as the results of any such testing would not be admissible. The Tribunal Vice-chair or member must reach her or his own conclusions as to the credibility of a particular witness. See Harvey v. FIC Investment and others (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 126 where the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal reached a similar conclusion as to the admissibility of polygraph evidence
5Given the inadmissibility of polygraph evidence, the Request for an Order directing the taking of lie detector tests is denied.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of December, 2010.
“Signed by”
_____________________________________ Keith Brennenstuhl Vice-chair