Jean Iu

The appellant sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund after a dealer failed to pay out his original vehicle loan upon refinancing, leaving him with two loans for the same vehicle.

The Board of Trustees denied the claim on the basis that the refinancing transaction did not constitute a 'trade' under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transaction was merely a transfer of a loan to obtain a better interest rate, not a trade involving the buying, selling, leasing, or exchanging of an interest in a motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant, a Quality Control Inspector, suffered injuries from a slip and fall and required a six-week medical leave.

During her absence, the respondent employer failed to issue a Record of Employment (ROE) to allow her to access sickness benefits, insisting she complete a standard form despite her disability.

Upon her return, the employer presented her with a new employment contract that purported to hire her as a new employee, which she refused to sign.

She was laid off shortly thereafter.

The Tribunal found that the failure to accommodate her request for an ROE and the attempt to rewrite her employment contract constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

While the Tribunal accepted that the employer was undergoing a legitimate workforce reduction, it found that the applicant's disability played a role in her selection for layoff.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to conduct human rights training.

Two complainants, common-law spouses, filed human rights complaints against their employer.

The first complainant alleged sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal by the company owner.

The Tribunal dismissed her complaint, finding her evidence inconsistent and not credible.

The second complainant alleged his employment was terminated because of his marital relationship with the first complainant after she raised her allegations.

The Tribunal upheld his complaint, finding the employer precipitously terminated his contract based on his partner's behaviour rather than his own conduct.

The employer was ordered to pay the second complainant $3,000 in compensation for injury to dignity and $6,340 in restitution for lost wages.

The complainant, a bartender with an anxiety disorder, alleged that her manager harassed and discriminated against her on the basis of her disability, ultimately forcing her to resign.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the manager's public comments about her mental health, fabrication of reasons for her absences, and reduction of her shifts constituted discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in general damages but denied the claim for special damages due to insufficient medical evidence linking her ongoing inability to work to the discrimination.

The corporate respondent was also ordered to post a notice regarding human rights in the workplace.

The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.

The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.

The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.

To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.