Prahbu Rajan

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether section 53(8) of the amended Human Rights Code precluded the Tribunal from hearing original allegations against the respondents or adding potential responding parties to a complaint referred by the Commission.

The Tribunal held that section 53(8) does not apply to the referral of the subject-matter of a complaint pursuant to old section 36, nor does it apply to an amendment to such a referral, provided the amendment relates to the same subject-matter.

The Tribunal directed further submissions on whether the proposed amendments fell within the referred subject-matter and other preliminary issues.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision regarding two consolidated complaints involving the complainant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the respondents.

The decision addressed whether prior procedural rulings by the Tribunal Chair precluded the complainant from advancing certain issues, including adding the Commission and its Legal Director as respondents, alleging abuse of process, and requesting that her original complaint be heard due to an alleged breach of settlement.

The Adjudicator found that the prior decisions were not final determinations on these substantive issues, as they primarily dealt with procedural matters or were made when the complainant was not yet a party.

Consequently, the complainant was permitted to proceed with her requests, and a schedule for further submissions was established.

In an interim decision regarding consolidated human rights complaints, the Tribunal identified the remaining procedural and substantive issues in dispute, including allegations of bias against a previous adjudicator, abuse of process by the Commission, and requests for production.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare submissions on whether the previous adjudicator's decisions finally determined certain issues and scheduled further hearing dates to address these preliminary matters.

The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the complaints due to allegations of real or perceived bias, including prejudgment, ex parte communications, and self-interest in maintaining a positive relationship with the Commission.

The adjudicator confirmed there had been no ex parte communications.

However, to avoid prolonging the determination of the complaints and to reduce collateral issues, the adjudicator decided to reassign the complaints to a different adjudicator and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The complainant alleged that he was terminated from his employment at a clothing recycling warehouse because he claimed workers' compensation benefits for a back injury sustained at work.

The respondents denied the injury occurred and claimed the complainant quit voluntarily.

The Tribunal found that the complainant did suffer a workplace injury and that the individual respondent terminated his employment after learning of the WSIB claim, issuing a Record of Employment falsely stating the complainant had quit.

The Tribunal concluded this constituted discrimination because of disability under the Human Rights Code and awarded $10,000 in general damages and $5,146 in special damages for lost wages.