Prabhu Rajan

The Commission and the complainant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the human rights complaint for lack of evidence.

The Commission admitted that its counsel had erroneously advised the unrepresented complainant that he did not need to submit any evidence for the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair to deprive the complainant of a hearing on the merits due to his reasonable reliance on the Commission's incorrect advice.

The request for reconsideration was granted, as the unfairness to the complainant outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, especially since the respondent had never participated in the proceedings.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to intervene in a transitional application under the Human Rights Code to address the issue of the liability of the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police for the actions of a police constable.

The respondents opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene, finding that the issue of liability was important, there was no case law on the liability of the Chief of Police, and the self-represented applicant might not be able to provide full argument on the issues.

The complainant requested the Tribunal to reconvene to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous orders.

The Ministry objected, arguing a lack of particulars and asserting that the complainant must lead evidence first to establish a prima facie case of non-compliance.

The Ministry also questioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce the orders.

The Tribunal held that it retained supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the implementation of its orders.

It found that sufficient particulars were provided for the initial issues raised.

Given the Ministry's control over the relevant information and the protracted history of the proceedings, the Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to order the Ministry to present its evidence first.

The complainant filed human rights complaints against the Toronto Police Services Board, the Chief of Police, and the Toronto Transit Commission.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Toronto Police Association was granted limited intervenor status to address production requests.

Second, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' argument that the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not a party as of right, finding that the statutory requirements under the transition provisions of the Human Rights Code were met.

Third, regarding the production of records governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Tribunal directed the parties to address the issue at the resumed Initial Conference Call.

The complainant requested that the hearing be reconvened to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous Tribunal orders from 2002 and 2007.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume and suspended the operations of the TEDC Compliance Committee pending resolution.

The Tribunal also ordered the Ministry to produce various documents related to workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, respond to a METRAC report, and provide METRAC personnel with access to Ministry staff for evaluation purposes.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaints regarding mandatory retirement for firefighters.

The Commission argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and its own policy on disability and the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Commission was attempting to re-litigate issues already fully argued and that there was no established jurisprudence on the specific issues decided.

The Tribunal also noted that the Commission had not raised its policy during the original hearing.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in a school transfer and suspension, the adjudicator ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence and student records.

The respondents sought to introduce expert evidence from a forensic document examiner regarding alleged erasures on the complainant's chemistry exam.

Applying the Mohan test, the adjudicator found the expert evidence inadmissible as it was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The adjudicator also directed that written permission must be provided for the admission of documents forming part of any student's Ontario Student Record, pursuant to section 266(2) of the Education Act, failing which the documents would be struck from the record.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested the production of various documents from the respondents prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, citing its previous decision in Washington v. Toronto Police Services Board.

The parties were directed to file their hearing briefs and provide disclosure in accordance with the Rules.

In an interim decision during a human rights hearing, the Tribunal ruled on several evidentiary issues.

The Tribunal excluded documents relating to the pre-VRA period and the Commission's investigation report.

The Tribunal refused to admit the expert evidence of Dr. Frances Henry on anti-Black racism, finding it irrelevant because the complainant identified as 'brown' rather than 'Black', and unnecessary to assist the trier of fact.

The Tribunal allowed the respondents to call two police officers to testify about questioning the complainant's brother, finding that the brother's own testimony authorized disclosure under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a sweeping publication ban regarding other students' academic records, noting that the Education Act privilege applies only to Ontario Student Records.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested to add Respite Services as a respondent party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of police reference checks.

The complainant alleged that the disclosure of mental health apprehensions in reference checks constituted discrimination in services.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complaint focused on systemic policy regarding police services, and adding Respite Services would inappropriately shift the focus to an individualized employment complaint.

The complainant, aged 57, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a tenure-track assistant professor position.

The Tribunal found that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, as the successful candidate was preferred due to superior teaching and current research.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent university and its Dean failed to adequately investigate allegations of age discrimination raised by a dissenting member of the hiring committee, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board and several individuals, the Tribunal considered whether to remove certain personal respondents.

The Commission advised it would not proceed against four individuals, who were subsequently removed.

The Tribunal then analyzed whether to remove a fifth individual, a superintendent, applying factors such as corporate vicarious liability and whether her individual conduct was a central issue.

Finding no compelling reason to keep her as a party and no prejudice in her removal, the Tribunal removed her.

The Tribunal declined to remove a sixth individual whose conduct was central to the allegations.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed the consolidation of complaints and bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Commission lacked the authority to combine a newly referred reprisal complaint with a main complaint already before the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal exercised its own power to consolidate the proceedings to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring personal respondents would not face liability for the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases to expedite the process and provided further case management directions.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by a school board and its staff brought several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission and complainant to provide a complete and exhaustive list of the specific material facts relied upon for each alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request for a medical examination of the complainant as premature.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings relating to the International Baccalaureate program generally and the school board's suspension appeal procedures, finding them outside the scope of the complaint, but retained specific factual allegations as potential context.

The Tribunal also made various orders regarding document production, denying the respondents' request to inspect the hard drives of the complainant's computers.

The Commission and the Complainant brought a motion to add Rittal GmbH & Co. KG as a party respondent to a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a hiring decision.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a respondent and found sufficient facts alleged to support a finding that Rittal could be liable for the actions of its directors.

The motion to add Rittal was granted.

The Tribunal also addressed the Respondents' requests for further disclosure from the Complainant, ordering disclosure of information related to the Complainant's consulting services and potential overlapping damages in separate litigation, but denying requests for irrelevant prior employment records.

The Respondents' request to adjourn the hearing was denied.

The respondents sought to bring a preliminary motion to address alleged deficiencies in the pleadings and disclosure provided by the complainant and the Commission, arguing they could not file their response until these issues were resolved.

The Tribunal found the motion premature, noting that preliminary and procedural objections should generally not be brought prior to a party filing its pleadings and making disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file their response and make disclosure, after which any remaining issues could be addressed at a pre-hearing conference or by motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refuse to investigate his human rights complaint.

The Commission had determined that the complaint was more appropriately dealt with under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, as the applicant had previously grieved his dismissal and reached a settlement through his union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable because the applicant had access to an arbitration procedure capable of adjudicating human rights issues and had already reached a settlement.

The complainant, a Black woman, was detained by a store security guard for allegedly stealing a bra.

A Peel Regional Police officer was called to investigate.

During the investigation, the officer asked if the complainant spoke English, called her a 'fucking foreigner', threatened to take her to jail, and subjected her to a heightened and prolonged investigation despite weak evidence.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the officer and the police service discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race in the provision of a service.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and ordered the police service to develop a specific anti-racial profiling directive and provide comprehensive training to its officers.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a hearing to finalize the quantum of damages owed to the complainant following a 30-year legal process involving findings of racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment at the respondent's plant.

The parties had previously agreed to a quantum of $352,722.82, but the self-represented complainant subsequently refused to accept the funds, seeking instead to have the appellate court reconsider the entire case de novo.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside an appellate ruling and ordered the respondent to pay the agreed-upon amount, concluding that this payment fully satisfied the respondent's remedial obligations and terminated the proceedings.

In an interim decision during a human rights hearing alleging racial profiling by a police officer, the adjudicator ordered the respondents to produce the officer's employment record, original notebook, and human rights training manuals.

The adjudicator also qualified Professor Norman Scot Wortley as an expert witness on racial profiling in the criminal justice system and police investigations, finding his proposed evidence relevant and necessary to provide context for the tribunal.