Raj Dhir

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.

The applicant, who has moderate hearing loss, applied to be a firefighter but failed the hearing test without his hearing aid.

The City of Toronto declined to hire him after an expert audiologist concluded he could not safely perform the duties even with a hearing aid.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to refer to the Tribunal, finding the hearing standard was a bona fide occupational requirement and the applicant had been individually assessed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, holding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The complainants, former employees of the respondents, alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and reprisal.

The female complainant testified to ongoing sexual comments and solicitations by the personal respondent.

After she confronted him and filed a police report, she was dismissed.

The male complainant, who supported her, was also dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the complainants' evidence, finding that the respondents violated the Human Rights Code through sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages to both complainants, and ordered the personal respondent to implement a comprehensive workplace harassment policy.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of $42,000 and $15,000 to $22,500 respectively.

The respondents argued the claims were excessive.

The Divisional Court considered the complexity of the Human Rights Code issues and the unusual circumstance of the Tribunal accidentally losing the record, which increased preparation time.

However, noting the similarity of interests between the two appellants and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable to the losing party, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale of $10,000 to each appellant.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review of an Ontario Human Rights Commission decision, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondents sought costs, while the applicant argued that a costs award would impose a significant burden.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $3,500 for the Commission and $3,500 for the Hospital and doctor, payable by the applicant.

The respondent City of Toronto brought motions seeking production of the complainant's medical records, related correspondence, income information, and an order compelling the complainant to undergo a physical examination of his knee by a doctor of the respondent's choosing.

The Tribunal granted the motions for production of the medical records, correspondence, and income information, finding they met the threshold of arguable relevance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for a physical examination, holding that unlike the courts, it lacks the express statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to order a party to submit to a medical examination without their consent.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her discrimination complaint against her former employer.

The Commission had exercised its discretion under section 34 of the Human Rights Code to dismiss the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to it, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Commission's exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable.

During a hearing, the Commission and the Complainant objected to the late introduction of documents by the Respondent relating to a job competition.

The moving parties argued that the late disclosure violated the Tribunal's Rules, constituted an abuse of process, and prejudiced their case.

The Tribunal ruled that the documents were relevant and admissible, finding no deliberate concealment by the Respondent.

The Tribunal held that any potential prejudice could be remedied by allowing the Commission and Complainant to recall witnesses to testify about the documents.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the Commission was bound by a prior finding of the Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act, noting the issues were entirely different.

The complainant, a young black woman, was employed as a receptionist by the respondent physiotherapist.

She alleged that the respondent subjected her to ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including unwanted physical contact, racial slurs, and exposure to pornography.

When she repeatedly rejected his advances and formally asked him to stop, he refused to give her a promised raise and ultimately terminated her employment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct created a poisoned work environment and constituted intersectional discrimination based on both race and sex.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $3,384 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement anti-discrimination policies and undergo training.

Counsel for the respondent brought a motion to be removed from the record after losing contact with his client.

The respondent had apparently abandoned his business and left the country permanently.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that counsel had made all reasonable efforts to locate his client.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing on the merits would proceed as scheduled, as the respondent was on notice of the dates.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to add Allan Brandston as a personal respondent to a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate the complainant's creed regarding a condominium Sabbath elevator.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Payne, finding there was reliable evidence on the record that could lead to a finding of liability against Mr. Brandston, and that he would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that a personal respondent should not be added when a corporate respondent is already a party, noting that the Code's provisions for adding parties do not restrict their application to corporate respondents.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination and reprisal in employment against the Toronto District School Board, the Commission and the Complainant sought to qualify two expert witnesses to provide opinion evidence on anti-racist education, institutional culture, and anti-black racism.

The Board of Inquiry declined to qualify both proposed experts, finding their evidence was neither relevant nor necessary to determine the specific issues of liability in the employment context.

Additionally, the Complainant brought a motion requesting the Board to provide a court reporter at its own expense for the remainder of the hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that the Human Rights Code does not require proceedings to be recorded and that the absence of a transcript would not breach the principles of natural justice.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents, Iswood Holdings Inc. and Keel Staff Enterprises Inc., after discovering that the original corporate respondent did not own all three franchise locations involved.

The adjudicator granted the motion, noting the companies were intermingled and the president of all three was aware of the misconception.

Subsequently, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent for lack of evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed this motion as premature, ruling that the respondent must either elect whether to call evidence or wait until all evidence is heard before bringing a motion for non-suit.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents who owned other franchise locations.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding the respondents were aware of the misconception regarding ownership and the operations were intermingled.

The respondents also moved for a non-suit to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion without prejudice, requiring the respondents to elect whether to call evidence before a non-suit motion could be heard, as the tribunal needed to hear all evidence to determine his liability.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination, arguing that the Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction when the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew from participating in the hearing.

The Board held that while the Commission can abandon active carriage of the complaint, it cannot withdraw the complaint itself once referred, nor can it withdraw as a statutory party.

The Board retained jurisdiction, and the complainant was entitled to rely on his statutory party status to present evidence and argument on the merits of the complaint.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainants, a Black mother and daughter, alleged that the respondents discriminated against them on the basis of race by refusing to rent them an apartment.

The mother viewed the apartment on behalf of her daughter and was told the next day it was rented.

A white friend called later and was told it was available.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The adjudicator found that a prima facie case of discrimination was established and ordered the respondents to pay general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and to implement a non-discriminatory tenant application form.

The complainant, a lesbian in a conjugal relationship, applied to change her surname to a hyphenated version of her and her partner's surnames under the Change of Name Act.

The Office of the Registrar General refused to process the application because the Act's spousal election provision only applied to opposite-sex couples.

The Board of Inquiry found that this refusal constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of services, contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Registrar General to process the name change application and awarded the complainant $500 in general damages.

The complainant alleged that the Mayor and the City of London discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to issue a civic proclamation for 'Pride Weekend'.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Mayor's refusal, and the City Council's subsequent failure to rectify the situation, constituted discrimination in the provision of services.

The Board rejected the respondents' arguments that proclamations are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code and that compelling a proclamation would violate their freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Board ordered the respondents to issue the proclamation and awarded the complainant $10,000 in damages.