James Noonan

The complainant alleged that her probationary employment was terminated due to gender discrimination by her supervisor.

The Board of Inquiry found that the decision to dismiss was actually made by higher-level management based on a poor reference from a previous employer and observations of excessive absences from her workstation.

The evidence did not support the allegation that the supervisor's assessment or the ultimate termination decision was motivated by gender bias.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought production of documents relating to the respondent's Alcohol and Drug Policy as a whole, while the respondent argued for a phased approach focusing first on the individual complainant.

The Board of Inquiry adopted a phased approach, ordering production of documents relating only to the individual complainant at this stage.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association sought intervener status as amicus curiae.

The Board granted the CCLA intervener status to make submissions at the conclusion of the case, noting the public interest nature of human rights inquiries.

The complainant, a senior operator in a safety-sensitive position, alleged discrimination based on handicap under the respondent's Alcohol and Drug Policy after disclosing a past alcohol problem.

The respondent sought a preliminary ruling to limit the Board of Inquiry's jurisdiction to the policy's specific effects on the complainant, rather than the policy as a whole.

The Board declined to make a definitive ruling on the scope of the proceeding at the outset, finding it premature and stating that the relevance of evidence regarding the broader policy would be determined as the hearing unfolded.

The employers applied to the Tribunal alleging a change in the identity of the employers under the Pay Equity Act.

The employers argued that the Tribunal should determine who the employer is at different points in time due to changed circumstances, even though no pay equity plan had been posted.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into changed circumstances absent an existing pay equity plan.

The existence of a plan is a precondition to examining whether changed circumstances render the plan no longer appropriate.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination due to undue delay, arguing that the death of a key witness prejudiced their defence.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motion, finding the delay did not make a fair hearing impossible.

The respondents also objected to the admission of hearsay evidence regarding statements made by the deceased witness about the respondent supervisor's alleged bias against women.

The Board ruled the hearsay evidence inadmissible because it lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial.

However, the Board allowed direct evidence from another witness regarding the supervisor's statements, despite the Commission's failure to disclose this evidence prior to the hearing.