Porter William Beeson Heffernan

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the issues in both proceedings overlapped significantly.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and place of origin.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was entirely reasonable, as the Vice-Chair had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, assessed credibility, and provided cogent reasons for preferring the respondent's evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant requested that he and his witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone conference call at the upcoming hearing due to the expense and inconvenience of travelling from British Columbia to Ottawa.

The respondent objected, arguing that credibility was a central issue and live evidence was essential.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant and his girlfriend, finding that their presence was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the Tribunal to fairly assess credibility.

The Tribunal deferred its decision regarding a third witness until detailed statements of fact were exchanged.