Melany Franklin

The respondents requested to reactivate the human rights application after criminal charges against the personal respondent were withdrawn.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of criminal charges against the personal respondent for sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing delay and psychological trauma.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the potential impact on the personal respondent's Charter right to remain silent and the need to avoid inconsistent findings of fact outweighed the applicant's concerns regarding delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing six days before it was scheduled to begin, citing his counsel's heavy workload and lack of preparation.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a heavy workload does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction to justify a late adjournment request.

The applicant, alleging racial profiling by police, brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of various documents, service on third parties, and an adjournment.

The respondent TPSB requested permission to have a court reporter record the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the production request only with respect to background checks conducted on the applicant, finding the other requested documents lacked arguable relevance.

The requests for service on third parties and adjournment were denied.

The request for a court reporter was granted on the condition that the transcript be shared with all parties and the Tribunal.

The applicant, a police officer, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, sex, and family status, as well as reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Toronto Police Association was granted intervenor status.

The applicant's request to amend her transitional application was partially granted to include allegations directly arising from her initial arrest, but denied for subsequent events.

The request to add the Chief of Police as a respondent was denied, as the Police Services Board is the proper institutional party.

The respondents' request to strike portions of the new application for delay was denied, as the allegations formed a series of incidents.

Finally, the two applications were consolidated on consent.

The complainant, an Aboriginal man, alleged he was subjected to racially biased policing when he was stopped, investigated, and arrested for possession of stolen property (his own bicycle) by a Toronto police officer.

The Tribunal found that the officer's heightened suspicions, closed-minded investigation, hasty arrest based on flawed information, and post-release demands were influenced by negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people lacking credibility and being prone to criminality.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's race was a factor in his treatment, establishing a case of racial discrimination in the provision of policing services.

The hearing was bifurcated, with liability and remedies to be determined subsequently.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on preliminary issues.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled conference call despite being aware of it.

In accordance with its standard practice, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application for non-attendance.

The complainant, an Aboriginal man alleging racial profiling during a police stop, brought a motion for the production of various documents from the respondents and the Chief of Police.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard for pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the production of break and enter occurrence reports, current CPIC policies, primary training manuals on investigative stops, and training materials regarding diversity and racial profiling.

The Tribunal denied the request for contact cards due to their discretionary nature and the burden of retrieval, and denied the request for note-taking and whistle-blowing policies as they were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The respondent Police Services Board brought preliminary requests to disallow the complainant's proposed expert witnesses and to bifurcate the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to disallow the experts at the pre-hearing stage, finding it premature to assess their qualifications and the relevance of their evidence without hearing testimony.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing, noting that the expansive systemic remedies sought by the complainant warranted dealing with liability first to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution.

The appellant employee suffered a mental breakdown and sued her employer for negligent infliction of mental suffering and negligent supervision, following a period of workplace restructuring, denial of a promotion, and disciplinary actions for absenteeism.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the employer's actions were reasonable responses to declining performance and that the employer was unaware of the employee's mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if a free-standing tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering exists in the employment context, the trial judge's factual findings precluded liability.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by police officers, the Tribunal ruled on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal held that findings of fact made by a criminal court judge in the course of acquitting the complainant could not be relied upon as binding in the human rights proceeding, as an acquittal does not establish facts for subsequent civil matters.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for witness statements taken by the complainant's criminal lawyer, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege because the proceedings were related.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the limited production of the complainants' medical records and personnel files, subject to strict privacy conditions.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.