Patty Murray

This appeal concerned whether public school teachers are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the search is performed in the workplace by their employers.

The case involved a school principal reading and taking screenshots of a private, password-protected log maintained by two teachers on their personal Google account, accessed via a workplace laptop, which was then used by the school board for disciplinary action.

The Court of Appeal found that the labour relations arbitrator and the Divisional Court erred in their interpretation and application of section 8, concluding that the teachers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their log, which was violated by the principal's actions.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination brought a Request for Order seeking production of the applicant's medical records, including clinical files from her family doctor and psychologist, as well as statements from her long-term disability application.

The Tribunal found the records were relevant because the applicant had put her medical status and ability to return to work in issue.

The Tribunal ordered production but limited the temporal scope to the period following her maternity leave until her resignation, and directed that the psychologist's records be redacted to remove private matters unrelated to her symptoms, restrictions, or ability to work.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin against the Peel Police Services Board and the Windsor Police Services Board.

The Peel Police Services Board requested a summary hearing to dismiss the allegations against it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding racial comments during transport, a phone call to his employer, and comments by an investigating detective had no reasonable prospect of success, largely due to inconsistencies with his prior OIPRD complaint and shifting explanations.

The allegations against the Peel Police Services Board were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits against the Windsor Police Services Board.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of services because the respondent college purchased advertising time during a football game featuring a team with an allegedly offensive name.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no service relationship between the applicant and the respondent, as the applicant was not a student and the respondent merely purchased commercial advertising space during the broadcast.

The applicant, a high school teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his needs regarding course assignments.

The respondents argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant refused to produce his doctors for cross-examination regarding medical notes that suggested he should only teach courses he felt capable of teaching.

The Tribunal held that while the applicant could not rely on the contentious medical statements without producing the doctors, the application should not be dismissed at this stage, as other non-medical evidence could potentially substantiate the failure to accommodate claim.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the respondents requested the disclosure of the applicant's medical records to understand the basis for his medical restrictions.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, consented to the disclosure of relevant clinical notes from his treating psychiatrist and family doctor.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the records from January 2011 to the present, subject to redaction of non-relevant entries by the doctors, and scheduled a telephone conference to address further case management issues.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate a disability, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events from 2008 and 2009 were untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and could not form part of the application.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' preliminary request for an order requiring the applicant to produce his treating doctors for cross-examination, deferring the issue of the weight to be given to medical reports until after the applicant's evidence is heard.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent hospital, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and reprisal.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a link between the adverse treatment she experienced—including exclusion by co-workers, discipline, and termination—and any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted issues with the applicant's credibility and perception of events, and found no evidence that the employer's actions were discriminatory or constituted reprisal for enforcing Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after an arbitrator dismissed her related employment grievances.

The respondent opposed reactivation until the arbitrator released comprehensive reasons, and alternatively requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application to avoid further delay, and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary educational assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after her employment was terminated.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to significant performance issues, including a failure to properly supervise students and follow the principle of 'guiding hands'.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had bona fide performance-related concerns and that there was no evidence to suggest the applicant's race or colour was a factor in her treatment or termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, and sex against his employer and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondents and the dismissal of certain allegations for delay.

The Tribunal declined to strike the older allegations, noting they were plead as context rather than separate breaches.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed all individual respondents except the occupational health physician, finding the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees but potentially not for the physician engaged to assess disability benefits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability by her employer, Sheridan College, and several personal respondents.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as their alleged conduct occurred within the course of their employment and the corporate respondent would be liable for any proven Code breaches.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, a former Associate Dean, from a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold of compelling reasons to maintain the personal respondent, and noting that the corporate respondent college assumed vicarious liability and had the capacity to implement any potential remedy.

The applicant brought a human rights application against the respondents.

Following the first day of hearing, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the mutual production of documents.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment insurance records, income documents, and evidence of mitigation efforts.

The personal respondent was ordered to produce notes and records relating to the applicant's employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging unfair discipline by the respondent police services board.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior release, or alternatively to defer it pending an ongoing Police Services Act proceeding.

At the preliminary hearing, both parties opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found that the concurrent proceedings involved overlapping facts and allegations, raising the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Police Services Act proceeding.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a return to work brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's long-term disability file.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's defence.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain his LTD file and deliver all non-privileged documents to the respondent, along with a privilege log for any withheld documents, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment on the grounds of perceived ancestry and creed.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons pursuant to Rule 19A.5 and issued directions for the exchange of documents and submissions regarding the binding nature of findings of fact from a prior Police Services Act hearing.

The applicant, a former police officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of perceived ancestry and creed.

The respondents brought a request to remove several personal respondents from the proceeding, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal applied the test for removing personal respondents, retaining three individuals whose alleged conduct was central to the application and could support personal liability, while removing four others whose actions were in the normal course of employment and for whom the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the Chief of Peel Regional Police as a personal respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services because of disability.

The applicant consented to the removal.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that no material facts were pled against the Chief of Police, there was no issue of vicarious liability, and the corporate respondent could provide the requested remedies.

The Request was granted and the Chief of Police was removed as a respondent.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.