Naomi Overend

The respondent was dismissed from his employment after his daughter and wife accused his employer (who was his brother-in-law) of sexual abuse.

The respondent filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of marital and family status.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enumerated grounds of marital and family status in the Ontario Human Rights Code are broad enough to encompass discrimination based on the particular identity of a complainant's spouse or family member.

The Court found that the respondent was arbitrarily disadvantaged based on stereotypical assumptions about his familial affiliations, constituting prohibited discrimination.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent employee was discharged by the appellant employer following an altercation.

A labour arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The employee also filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

A Board of Inquiry found the employer liable for discrimination and ordered remedies including damages and reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the employer's appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the human rights complaint under the Weber framework, nor did issue estoppel apply.

However, the Court set aside the reinstatement order, finding it inappropriate given the 11-year delay, the employee's subsequent comparable employment, and the Board's failure to give adequate weight to the arbitrator's decision.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a board of inquiry's pre-hearing disclosure order.

The board had ordered the complainant, who alleged discrimination based on a physical handicap, to produce various medical, workers' compensation, and pension files, as well as a list of all other treating medical practitioners.

The Court of Appeal held that the board had the authority to order the complainant to provide an affidavit of documents for the specified files, allowing for claims of privilege and irrelevance to be adjudicated.

However, the Court found that the board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the complainant to provide a list of all other treating doctors and their treatments without any relevance screening, as this unjustifiably infringed her privacy rights.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside that specific paragraph of the board's order.

The appeal concerned whether dismissal from employment after the employee's spouse and child accused the employer of past sexual abuse constituted discrimination based on marital status and family status.

The court held that under the Human Rights Code, marital and family status include not only the fact of being married or in a parent-child relationship, but also the identity of the spouse and family members.

The court rejected the view that discrimination analysis turns on whether the complainant belongs to a historically disadvantaged group, emphasizing that the Code protects individuals arbitrarily disadvantaged on enumerated grounds.

Because the employee was dismissed based on assumptions arising from his relationship to his spouse and child rather than his own conduct or merit, the dismissal was discriminatory.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board of Inquiry on remedy.

In this human rights appeal, the court clarified the scope of the leave endorsement and held that the appeal did not extend to a review of the finding of systemic discrimination.

The only issue properly before the court was the effect, if any, of an arbitration award on the jurisdiction and power of the Board of Inquiry to grant reinstatement, in light of the jurisprudence such as Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The matter was adjourned to permit the parties to file fresh factums addressing that sole jurisdictional question.

No costs were awarded for the attendance.