Sheila Block

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.

However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.

The complainant, an employee with over nine years of seniority and a history of absenteeism due to injuries, was discharged by the employer after a medical assessment indicated he could not perform his regular job and no light duty work was available.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advocate for him or file a grievance regarding his discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's perfunctory acquiescence to the discharge, without considering the arbitral jurisprudence on innocent absenteeism or the possibility of preserving his employment status, constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ordered the union to file and process a discharge grievance to arbitration at its own expense.