Naomi Calla

The respondents requested the dismissal of parts of a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police as untimely, and sought an order for the production of a document.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were discrete incidents not forming a series with the timely ones, and the applicant's explanation for the delay did not establish good faith.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce any relevant Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding one of the timely incidents.

During a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondents sought to cross-examine the complainant on his past criminal convictions for assault and theft, as well as a prior judicial finding regarding his credibility.

The Tribunal disallowed the questions, finding that the potential prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its minimal probative value.

The Tribunal noted that evidence of past assault convictions could improperly influence the assessment of the complainant's propensity for violence, while past theft convictions and a 13-year-old credibility finding in a different context would be of little assistance in assessing credibility in the current proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on various grounds.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 35 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a municipal prosecutor and a Justice of the Peace allegedly did not permit her to present her case with her infant son present.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prosecutor's actions were protected by prosecutorial immunity, which extends beyond the core elements of prosecutorial discretion to protect prosecutors from civil liability in the absence of malice.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police officers who allegedly dismissed her reports of tampering based on a perception that she had a mental illness.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the prior police investigation and subsequent review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

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 Chief of Police and respondent officers sought to vary a previous Tribunal order requiring the production of documents related to previous race-based complaints against the officers, proposing to redact complainant identities.

They also sought a stay of proceedings pending judicial review.

The Tribunal declined to vary the order, finding the proposed redaction and contact method inappropriate and unnecessary.

The Tribunal also denied the stay, finding no exceptional circumstances and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as delaying production would prejudice the complainant and the Commission.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling and assault by police officers, the Tribunal reviewed records of past complaints against the respondent officers to determine if they should be produced.

The Tribunal ordered the production of a 2001 complaint alleging a racially motivated assault at the same police division, finding its probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

A 2007 complaint lacking similarity was withheld.

The Tribunal declined to redact personal identifiers from the produced records but imposed conditions restricting their use to the current proceeding or any subsequent judicial review.

The moving parties sought a stay of an interim Tribunal decision ordering the production of police discipline records pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the traditional three-part test for a stay, considering it in the context of the revised Human Rights Code, which emphasizes expeditious resolution and limits judicial review of procedural rulings.

The Tribunal found that producing the records to the adjudicator would not cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding without delay.

The request for a stay was denied, though a brief extension was granted to allow the moving parties to seek a stay from the Divisional Court.

The applicant, an electronics student, ordered components that could be used for detonation.

The police received a tip and investigated the purchase, which included visiting the applicant's mother's home and speaking with the applicant.

The applicant alleged that the police discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and family status.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the police were following up on a tip and that there was no evidence that any of the alleged Code grounds played a role in the investigation.

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.