6 total
Tribunal dismisses several reprisal and improper investigation allegations due to Police Services Act statutory privilege.
The respondents requested the mid-hearing dismissal of several of the applicant's allegations of improper investigation and reprisal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to the Professional Standards Unit's investigation because assessing them would require admitting evidence protected by statutory privilege and confidentiality under the Police Services Act.
The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding the handling of the applicant's WSIB file and a denied promotion that occurred before she filed her human rights complaint.
Other allegations were permitted to proceed as they required a full evidentiary record.
Tribunal resolves multiple preliminary issues including application amendment, witness exclusion, and expert witness admissibility.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several preliminary issues raised by the parties.
The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to add further reprisal allegations.
The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.
The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests to exclude the respondents' instructing client and another officer from the hearing room, subject to conditions.
The respondents' request to dismiss certain allegations and their objection to the applicant's expert witness were denied, while they were granted an extension to call their own expert witness.
Tribunal proceedings are 'civil proceedings' under the Police Services Act, rendering police disciplinary documents inadmissible.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment and reprisal sought production of documents from a related police disciplinary hearing.
The respondents argued the documents were inadmissible under the statutory privilege in s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act.
The Tribunal held that a human rights proceeding is a 'civil proceeding' within the meaning of s. 83(8), departing from previous Tribunal decisions.
Consequently, the requested disciplinary documents were subject to an absolute statutory bar and were inadmissible, with the exception of the initial complaint made by the Chief of Police.
SIU ordered to produce witness statements but not Director's Report in human rights proceeding.
The respondents in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation file regarding the applicant's complaint.
The SIU opposed production of the Director's Report, an FOI request, and witness statements.
The Tribunal ordered the SIU to produce the witness statements, finding them arguably relevant to credibility and outweighing confidentiality concerns.
The Tribunal declined to order production of the Director's Report and FOI request, finding them not arguably relevant to the human rights proceeding.
Tribunal orders partial production of documents and directs submissions on admissibility of police disciplinary records.
In an interim decision following a case management meeting, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to produce certain emails and texts concerning the applicant up to the date of the Application.
The Tribunal declined to order production of documents created after the Application date, noting the applicant must first seek permission to amend her Application to add allegations of continuing reprisals.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act precludes the production of documents from a related disciplinary proceeding.
Repeal of long‑gun registry does not violate Charter ss. 7 or 15.
An advocacy organization challenged the constitutionality of federal legislation repealing the long‑gun registry created under the Firearms Act.
The applicant argued that eliminating the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms violated s. 7 of the Charter by increasing risks to life and security of the person, and violated s. 15 by disproportionately endangering women, particularly in situations of intimate partner violence.
The court held that the alleged harm resulted from private violence rather than state action and that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to maintain a risk‑reduction regulatory scheme.
The evidentiary record failed to establish a causal link between repeal of the registry and increased violence or gender‑based harm.
The legislation was therefore constitutional and represented a policy choice within Parliament’s authority.
