Laura Trachuk

The respondents brought a motion to stay the human rights proceedings on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the adjudicator was a complainant in another sex discrimination case and had expertise in feminist legal scholarship.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that involvement as a party in an unrelated human rights complaint does not create an apprehension of bias.

Furthermore, the Board held that an adjudicator's background in feminist scholarship and involvement in women's organizations does not constitute bias, as requiring adjudicators to have no prior involvement in human rights issues would hamper fair and knowledgeable adjudication.

The respondents sought to stay a human rights board of inquiry proceeding based on an order issued by the Quebec Superior Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Board of Inquiry held that the CCAA does not bind the Crown, and that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a Crown agency immune from the stay order.

Furthermore, the Board found that human rights proceedings are quasi-constitutional in nature and do not constitute 'proceedings' within the meaning of section 11 of the CCAA.

The motion to stay the proceedings was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to add Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited (A & P) as a respondent to a human rights complaint originally filed against Miracle Food Mart.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination regarding pay and advancement opportunities.

After the complaint was filed, A & P purchased selected assets of Miracle Food Mart.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion, finding that the successor company inherited the business operations and was the only entity capable of providing a remedy, particularly since the complaint alleged systemic discrimination.

Hay Management Consultants Limited sought to be added as a party intervenor in pay equity proceedings between the Ontario Nurses' Association and St. Michael's Hospital.

Hay argued it had a commercial interest because the union alleged its job comparison system was gender-biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Hay had no rights or obligations under the Pay Equity Act and no maintainable action against the union, and therefore was not entitled by law to be a party under section 5 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The complainant alleged she was terminated for requesting maternity leave.

She filed both a union grievance and a human rights complaint.

After the grievance was dismissed at arbitration, the respondents raised preliminary objections before the human rights Board of Inquiry, arguing the matter was res judicata and that the five-year delay in appointing the Board violated the Charter and constituted an abuse of process.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding that the arbitration did not finally determine the human rights issue, the parties were different, and the Charter provisions relied upon did not apply to civil human rights proceedings.

The Applicant union requested a hearing to review an Order of a Review Officer which found the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board to be the employer of the library staff for pay equity purposes.

The union argued that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was the true employer.

Applying the four criteria from Haldimand-Norfolk (No.3), the Tribunal found that the Municipality exercises substantial control over the Library Board's budget, heavily influences compensation practices, and that public library services are a core, integral activity of the Municipality.

The Tribunal concluded that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is the employer of the library workers for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to have the City of London and the County of Middlesex declared the employer of the nurses at the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

Applying the Haldimand-Norfolk test, the Tribunal found that the Health Unit has overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, and the core activity of providing public health programs independently.

The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit is the employer, and dismissed the application.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.