Robin Cumine

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 respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and unequal pay.

They argued the matter should be heard under other statutes, that the Commission's overlapping functions created an apprehension of bias, and that the delay in proceedings violated the Charter and constituted an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all preliminary motions, finding that concurrent jurisdiction does not oust the Code, the Commission's functions are statutorily authorized, and the delay did not render a fair hearing impossible.

A request for further particulars was also denied.

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.