Patricia Murray

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by conference call to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and having previously indicated her availability for the scheduled date.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

The complainant, a minor at the time of the events, brought a motion for a publication ban on his name.

The complainant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the school board and police services following an incident on school property that led to his expulsion and criminal charges.

Because the complainant was charged as a minor, the Youth Criminal Justice Act applied, which prohibits publishing the name of a young person dealt with under the Act.

The Tribunal granted a temporary publication ban on the complainant's name, noting the principles underlying the legislation, to remain in effect until mediation or further submissions.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The complainant, a black vice-principal, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was repeatedly denied promotion to the position of principal by the Durham Board of Education.

The Board of Inquiry found that the school board engaged in both direct and systemic discrimination.

The complainant was subjected to racist comments during an interview, denied permission to take the principal's course, and offered less release time than white counterparts.

The school board's informal and inconsistently applied promotion criteria disproportionately disadvantaged black teachers, who were concentrated in treatment schools and hindered from transferring to regular schools.

The complaint against the corporate respondent was upheld, while the complaint against the personal respondent was dismissed.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The respondents argued that the Commission's process was an abuse of process, breached procedural fairness, and that the significant delay between the events and the referral prejudiced their ability to defend the case.

The adjudicator applied the test for delay prejudice and found no evidence of prejudice of sufficient magnitude to impact the fairness of the hearing.

The adjudicator also found that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion to accept the complaint despite some events occurring outside the six-month window, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant referral to the Board of Inquiry.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion seeking an order to compel the Ontario Human Rights Commission to permit access to the investigator who investigated the complaint.

Although the Commission subsequently agreed to allow access, the respondents requested a written ruling.

The Board of Inquiry held that the principles of disclosure from criminal and civil law apply to human rights proceedings.

The fruits of the investigation are not the property of the Commission, and there is no property in a witness.

Therefore, the respondents' counsel is legally entitled to interview the Commission's investigator.