Patrick Brode

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service and staff sergeant discriminated against him based on a perceived disability (paranoid schizophrenia) by refusing to investigate his complaint of mischief against a former classmate.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' refusal to investigate the 16-year-old, unsupported allegation was based on the complaint lacking merit and being a waste of time, rather than any perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and place of origin by the respondent police service during his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who has paranoid schizophrenia, had threatened suicide, prompting a police response.

He alleged excessive force was used due to stereotypes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the police officers' actions, including the decision to apprehend and the force used, were based on the applicant's actual behaviour and threats of self-harm, not on any Code-protected grounds.

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint for abuse of process without a hearing on the merits, the respondents brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry held that it had jurisdiction to award costs despite the lack of a merits hearing, as a dismissal for abuse of process satisfies the statutory condition precedent.

The Board found no bad faith by the Commission but concluded that the abnormal nature of the preliminary proceedings caused undue financial hardship to both respondents.

However, noting that the separate representation of the respondents was wasteful given their common interests, the Board awarded only one set of costs, divided equally between them, totalling $8,000 each.

The respondents moved to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint on the grounds of abuse of process, excessive delay, and lack of disclosure.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the investigating officer's bias, the five-year delay, and the Commission's restricted disclosure policy might not individually warrant dismissal, their combined effect seriously prejudiced the respondents' ability to prepare their case.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn the hearing before the Board of Inquiry pending their applications for judicial review.

The respondents argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to decide the legal and Charter issues raised in their applications.

The Commission opposed the adjournment, arguing that the Board should decide the issues at first instance.

The Board found that while some issues were appropriate for court determination, the balance of convenience and the public policy of the Human Rights Code requiring expeditious proceedings weighed against granting an adjournment.

The motion for adjournment was denied.

The applicant union applied for certification with respect to employees performing janitorial services at the Cleary Auditorium, naming Ambassador Building Maintenance Limited as the respondent employer.

The respondent argued it merely provided a payroll service and was not the true employer.

The Board found that although a contract existed between the respondent and the auditorium, the auditorium actually hired, supervised, and set the working conditions for the employees.

Applying the "true employer" test, the Board concluded that the auditorium, not the respondent, was the true employer.

The application for certification against the respondent was dismissed.