Prabhu Rajan

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough and member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board.

The Commission investigated 11 allegations of misconduct, including leaking confidential personnel complaints, attempting to negotiate the police budget directly with the Chief, publicly criticizing the Chief's operational decisions, and making disparaging remarks about the Board and the Commission.

The Commission found that all 11 allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission rejected the Mayor's arguments that his role as Mayor superseded his obligations as a Board member and that his Charter rights to free expression shielded him from the Code of Conduct.

The Commission concluded that Mayor Bennett breached sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Code of Conduct and was guilty of misconduct.

During a hearing into the conduct of a police services board member, the Commission sought to introduce three new factual matters as particulars of an existing allegation of making disparaging remarks.

The member brought a motion to declare the new matters inadmissible, arguing they were new allegations that amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of natural justice because they were raised after the hearing had commenced.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the new matters were merely additional particulars that did not require amending the Notice of Hearing, and that the Commission had provided full disclosure with ample time for the member to prepare a response.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion to amend a Notice of Hearing to add two new allegations against the respondent, a member of a police services board.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking conditions if the amendment was granted.

The Commission granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent as no evidence had yet been adduced, and ordered that the respondent would not be required to lead evidence before a specified date.

The respondent, a member of a police services board, brought four preliminary motions seeking to stay or dismiss the proceedings against him.

He argued that the Commission failed to provide a motion record, that the Notice of Hearing lacked sufficient particulars, that there was a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias due to the Commission's dual investigative and adjudicative roles, and that he was entitled to transcripts from a separate proceeding.

The Commission dismissed all four motions, finding that no motion record was required for an investigation initiated on its own motion, the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable information of the allegations, the Commission's statutory structure and recusal policy prevented institutional bias, and there was no basis to order the disclosure of transcripts from an unrelated hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction to order the return of improperly disclosed documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the notes in question were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission admitted it did not have a practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to order the return, the notes were not privileged, and any privilege was waived.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order the return of improperly disclosed documents, the notes in question were not privileged.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission had no practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a female real estate agent, alleged she was subjected to a poisoned work environment and terminated on the basis of sex and gender.

She experienced derogatory name-calling, exclusion, and a persistent false sexual rumour involving her manager.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to reasonably investigate or address her complaints, allowing the poisoned environment to flourish.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's gender was a factor in the adverse treatment and that the discriminatory environment contributed to her termination.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Claims for lost income and personal liability against individual respondents were dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found they had discriminated against an employee on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, and sex.

The Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The adjudicator erred by refusing to accommodate a key witness for the employer, drawing an adverse inference from that witness's absence, and making findings of discrimination regarding a microwave policy and dress code that were unsupported by factual findings or logical legal reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a final decision that partially upheld her human rights complaint but dismissed allegations of gender-based wage discrimination and discriminatory termination.

She argued the Tribunal denied natural justice by refusing certain document production, applied an insurmountable burden of proof, and misapprehended material facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The respondents, an employer and a union, brought requests to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaints under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the complaints had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had appropriately dealt with the allegations against the union in a section 74 duty of fair representation application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the employer's request, finding that a grievance settlement between the employer and the union, which the complainant refused to sign and which did not explicitly address discrimination, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations against the employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided to refer a human rights complaint to the Tribunal in December 2008 but failed to communicate this decision to the Tribunal until April 2010 due to an administrative oversight.

Under the transitional provisions of the amended Human Rights Code, the Commission's authority to refer complaints expired on December 31, 2008.

The Tribunal held that a referral under section 36 of the old Code requires not only a decision to refer but also communication of that decision to the Tribunal.

Because the referral was not communicated before the statutory deadline, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The Ministry brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the complainant's contempt motion, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ministry argued that the adjudicator had prejudged the contempt issue by stating in a prior interim decision that the Ministry had failed to disclose relevant documents in a timely way.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the impugned statement was a factual observation regarding late disclosure, not a prejudgment of whether the non-disclosure was wilful or contemptuous.

The adjudicator concluded that a reasonable, informed person would not apprehend bias.

The Ministry of Correctional Services brought an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal order requiring the production of settlement documentation.

The respondent employee sought the documents to prove the Ministry failed to implement previously ordered remedies for workplace racial discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator correctly ordered production because the documents were relevant and necessary to address a compelling interest of justice, falling within an exception to settlement privilege.

The complainant sought the production of minutes of settlement of grievances relating to three substantiated Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy complaints.

The respondent Ministry argued the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The Tribunal held that settlement privilege must be established on a case-by-case basis using the Wigmore criteria, rather than as a prima facie class privilege.

The Tribunal found the Ministry failed to establish that the harm caused by disclosure outweighed the benefit to the correct disposal of the litigation.

Even if a prima facie privilege applied, the Tribunal found that an exception was warranted because disclosure was necessary for the attainment of an overriding interest of justice.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the settlement agreements.

In a remedy decision following a finding of racial discrimination regarding a school transfer, the Tribunal declined to order broad systemic remedies but ordered the school board to develop learning materials based on the case for its equity training.

The Tribunal also ruled that if the complainant wishes to rely on psychological evidence to support his claim for $80,000 in general damages, he must disclose his complete medical records to the respondent.

The Tribunal confirmed it lacks jurisdiction to award legal expenses.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the requirement to submit a Vulnerable Sector Screening Application for a taxi licence.

At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant requested an adjournment to obtain further documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment because the applicant could not identify the requested documents or explain their relevance.

The applicant then requested to withdraw his application, which the Tribunal granted.

A case management conference call was held to determine the remaining issues in dispute and the procedures for addressing them.

The complainant agreed that certain previously identified issues were no longer relevant.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of a one-day hearing in London, Ontario, and set deadlines for outstanding production requests and the submission of suggested hearing dates.

The complainant and the Commission brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add further officers as personal respondents.

Following discussions, the Chief of Police undertook to accept liability in the event any liability is found against the named or proposed officers.

Consequently, the parties agreed to withdraw the request, remove all named individual respondents, and add the Chief of Police as a respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.

The applicant, a Black mail delivery person, was previously found to have been racially discriminated against by a Toronto police officer who stopped and questioned him without cause.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal determined that the Toronto Police Services Board is jointly liable with the Chief of Police for the discriminatory actions of the officer under the Human Rights Code, despite the Board's argument that it only serves a policy function.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in monetary compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.