Craig Colraine

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought a motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the complainant in a discipline hearing involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a pharmacist.

The College requested that the complainant be permitted to testify behind a physical screen so she would not have to see the registrant, while allowing the registrant to view her testimony via video transmission.

The registrant did not oppose the motion.

The Discipline Committee found that the complainant met the definition of a vulnerable witness under its Rules of Procedure and that the requested accommodations were necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter without prejudicing the registrant.

The motion was granted.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged she was subjected to racial profiling and discrimination when an employee at the respondent's pharmacy falsely accused her of shoplifting, demanded to search her backpack, and failed to apologize after finding no stolen items.

The Tribunal found the employee's actions were contrary to store policy and that her strong belief of theft was illogical given she did not see the applicant take anything.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's race and colour were a significant factor in the adverse treatment.

The application was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $8,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, ancestry, and citizenship, more than a year after the alleged incident at a pharmacy.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application on the ground of delay.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because he was pursuing an informal resolution with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that choosing to pursue other proceedings or informal resolution before initiating an application is generally not sufficient to justify a delay under the good faith exception.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that decisions by WSIB case managers appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal noted that this raises significant issues regarding the interpretation of section 45.1 in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, or abuse of process.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a temporary staffing agency and two pharmacy chains.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found that the applications involved identical allegations, common issues of fact and law, and overlapping remedies.

Despite the applicant's objection regarding an imbalance of legal representation, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid multiple proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of citizenship and ethnic origin after her manager allegedly yelled that she did not understand English during a dispute over scheduling.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the manager's comments about language were used as a proxy for the applicant's ethnic origin or citizenship.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before terminating the hearing.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after transferring her complaint from the Commission.

She also commenced a civil action claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination based on the same factual circumstances, but deliberately omitted the reprisal claim from the civil action.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for an alleged infringement of the Code arising out of the same factual context.

The application was dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The applicant applied for an additional licensed area for an outdoor patio with a capacity of 48 persons.

Local residents and the condominium corporation objected to the application, citing significant noise issues from the existing indoor premises and concerns that a patio would exacerbate the problem.

The Board heard evidence from acoustic experts for both sides and reviewed the history of noise mitigation efforts by the applicant.

The Board found that the objectors did not meet their onus to demonstrate that issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The application was approved subject to strict conditions, including no music on the patio, mandatory security personnel, and restricted hours for the sale and service of alcohol.

The applicant filed a complaint under s. 91(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging the responding party failed to comply with a written settlement agreement resolving an earlier unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party argued the settlement was void due to the applicant's failure to disclose that another employee intended to file a similar complaint, and alleged issues with union membership evidence.

The Board held that the applicant had no duty to disclose the other employee's intentions and that the settlement terms were clear and binding.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the settlement and pay the agreed funds, but declined to award interest due to the applicant's delay in bringing the enforcement application.