Melissa Atkins

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint, the respondent union sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the costs provision in the Human Rights Code had been repealed.

The Tribunal held that it had no inherent jurisdiction to award costs and that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not provide jurisdiction because the Tribunal had not made the requisite rules.

Furthermore, the right to seek costs under the repealed Code provision had not accrued prior to its repeal, as the complaint was dismissed after the repeal took effect.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints against the employer and the union under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaints was appropriately dealt with in a settled duty of fair representation application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the OLRB settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint against the union, as the same facts and allegations of discrimination were raised and resolved.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the complaint against the employer, finding that the OLRB proceeding could not adjudicate the employer's alleged failure to accommodate, and the settlement did not express an intention to resolve the underlying human rights issues with the employer.

The Tribunal also struck out new allegations raised by the Commission that were not part of the original complaints.

Following a pre-hearing conference call, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision establishing a process to address preliminary objections raised by the respondents.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal should not hear the matter or that some allegations should be excluded.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant and the Commission to clarify the specific actions alleged to constitute discrimination, and set a timetable for written submissions, documentary evidence, and a one-day oral hearing to determine the preliminary issues.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.