Lisa Cirillo

The College of Nurses of Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which refused to dismiss a human rights complaint filed by a nurse.

The nurse alleged discrimination based on disability after the College's Registration Committee imposed conditions on her certificates of registration.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had previously reviewed and upheld the conditions, finding they reasonably accommodated her disability while protecting the public.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code by failing to defer to HPARB's specialized public protection mandate and by improperly assessing the adequacy of HPARB's reasons rather than whether the substance of the complaint was appropriately dealt with.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying application was brought by the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HPARB's participation was not necessary to assist the court, as other parties were well-equipped to address the relevant issues.

Furthermore, the court noted that HPARB's proposed submissions were inappropriately adversarial for a quasi-judicial tribunal.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the lack of a complete recording of the hearing deprived him of natural justice and his right to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of a recording did not prevent the court from properly disposing of the appeal based on the tribunal's detailed findings of fact and reasons.

The court upheld the tribunal's findings that the landlord illegally entered the rental unit and substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

Transportation Action Now, Inc. (TAN) brought a motion seeking to intervene in a human rights complaint regarding the Toronto Transit Commission's Wheel-Trans service.

TAN sought full non-party intervenor status to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal submissions.

The Board of Inquiry reviewed its jurisdiction to grant intervenor status and the criteria for amicus curiae participation.

The Board found that while the case involved public interest, TAN did not demonstrate a current expertise or a perspective different from the existing parties (the Commission and the Complainants) that would assist the Board.

The motion to intervene was dismissed.

Following a finding that the personal respondent sexually harassed the complainant and took reprisals against her for filing a human rights complaint, the Board of Inquiry assessed remedies.

The Board awarded the complainant maximum general damages and mental anguish damages for the sexual harassment and solicitation, as well as separate damages for the retaliatory conduct, which included the commencement of a $1.5 million civil action against her.

The Board also awarded lost wages and legal expenses incurred as a direct result of the reprisal, and held a successor corporation jointly and severally liable for the awards.

The complainant alleged that her employer sexually harassed her, subjected her to sexual solicitations, and created a poisoned work environment.

After she filed a human rights complaint, the employer served her with a $1.5 million civil claim and sent threatening letters to her and her witnesses.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct violated multiple sections of the Human Rights Code, including the rights to be free from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The corporate respondent was also held liable for the employer's actions as its directing mind.

The Board retained jurisdiction to determine remedies.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding allegations of sexual harassment, the Commission brought motions to add a corporate respondent, add an allegation of reprisal, and obtain a cease and desist order against the personal respondent.

The adjudicator granted the motions to add the corporate respondent and the reprisal allegation.

Finding that the personal respondent had engaged in intimidating conduct, including serving a civil claim on the complainant in the hearing room and sending threatening correspondence, the adjudicator issued an order under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act directing him to cease direct contact with the complainant, the Commission, and witnesses, and to refrain from using threatening or insulting language.

The adjudicator declined to rule on the respondents' motions for a stay and production of documents due to the personal respondent's unexcused absence.

The complainant brought a preliminary motion before the Board of Inquiry to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint against only two respondents, explicitly declining to refer it against the others.

The complainant argued the Board had jurisdiction to add the remaining respondents under s. 39(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to add respondents where the Commission had already considered and expressly decided not to refer the complaint against them.

The Board held that reviewing the Commission's referral decision falls within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.

The complainant alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her on the basis of family status by denying her the opportunity to rent an apartment because she had a child.

The respondent claimed the apartment was unsafe for children and that it had been reserved for two men.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondent's explanations implausible and concluded that she had constructively excluded the complainant due to a de facto 'adults only' policy.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the discriminatory practice, pay $1,000 in general damages, and reimburse the complainant for the rent differential incurred.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding the scheduling of the resumption of a hearing into a human rights complaint.

After reviewing written submissions from the parties, the panel provided two options: resume the hearing earlier than April 2, 1997, to continue the cross-examination of the complainant, or maintain the status quo and resume on April 2, 1997.

The parties were directed to notify the Deputy Registrar if they unanimously chose the earlier resumption date.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding a motion in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The panel ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the potential outcomes of the motion, which included options for resuming the hearing before or after April 2, 1997, and the scope of the proceedings upon resumption.