Richard Miller

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applicant's status as an undischarged bankrupt affected his ability to proceed with the application.

After receiving written submissions from the parties and the Trustee in Bankruptcy, the Tribunal found that the application could continue to mediation with notice to the Trustee.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of the remedy sought so the Trustee could determine its level of participation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

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

First, it ordered the applicant to produce travel documents relevant to the mitigation of damages.

Second, it denied the applicant's request to alter the order of proceedings to have the respondent present its case before the applicant's medical witnesses.

Third, it directed the respondent to provide detailed witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), the Tribunal held a case conference to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name, directed the applicant to file a formal request for corporate ownership documents, and noted the applicant's withdrawal of a bifurcation request.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce Records of Employment for comparable employees with low sales figures, ordered the applicant to produce a birth certificate and medical records, and limited the scope of the respondent's witnesses' testimony to the respondent's maternity leave policies rather than their personal experiences.

The applicant, a 53-year-old who previously worked for the respondent through a third-party contractor, alleged age discrimination after failing to obtain an interview for a custodial maintenance position.

The respondent received over 200 applications and hired 32 individuals, including some younger and at least one older than the applicant.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence beyond speculation to link the failure to hire to the applicant's age, and noting that the traditional prima facie case test is not rigidly applied at the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order to remove the named individual respondents and to require the respondent school board to produce certain classes of documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the production of some documents relating to the performance and promotion of other Vice Principals subject to strict confidentiality conditions, but denied other production requests as premature or irrelevant to the current phase of the bifurcated hearing.

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 applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated due to pregnancy, requested the production of documents from the respondent, including sales performance data of other employees, policies, and internal correspondence.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that poor performance was a pretext for her dismissal.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide the last known contact information of the manager who terminated the applicant's employment.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and a seven-week extension of time to file hearing materials, citing the need to review newly disclosed documents.

The applicant consented to a brief extension but opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, but granted a brief extension of time for the respondent to file its materials.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had sent her application via Canada Post Xpresspost prior to the deadline, but it was received by the Tribunal after the one-year anniversary of the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that because the deadline fell on a Saturday and the following Monday was a statutory holiday, the time limit was extended to the next business day under the Legislation Act, 2006.

Consequently, the application was filed in a timely manner.

Alternatively, the Tribunal held that any delay was incurred in good faith and caused no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing on consent, stating the parties had reached a settlement in principle and needed time to complete paperwork.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, adjourning the hearing only until the afternoon of the first scheduled day.

The Tribunal noted its policy against adjourning hearings for settlement discussions absent exceptional circumstances.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the respondents objected to the inclusion of evidence concerning a 2004 refusal of 'exceptional case status' in the first phase of a bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, confirming that the allegation of discrimination in the promotion process would be heard in the first phase, as no timeliness objection had been raised earlier.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed grievances on behalf of the applicant.

The respondents requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of the outstanding grievances before deciding on the deferral request.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination in the promotion process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision confirming that the hearing and disclosure would be bifurcated into two phases.

The first phase would address the individual allegations of discrimination, including the refusal of 'exceptional case status', while broader statistical and contextual evidence would be deferred to the second phase.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations pre-dating July 2004 due to delay, and the dismissal of systemic discrimination claims for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2004 allegations were not part of a series of incidents and dismissed them as untimely.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the systemic discrimination claims, finding it premature to conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.

To manage the broad scope of evidence, the Tribunal directed that the hearing be bifurcated between individual allegations and broader contextual evidence, as well as between liability and remedy.

The organization respondent failed to appear for the continuation of a human rights hearing.

The applicant and individual respondent informed the Tribunal that the organization might be insolvent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that if the organization is insolvent, proceedings against it may be stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to take reasonable steps to determine the organization's status and advise the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status.

The applicant had also filed a grievance under her collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Despite all parties opposing deferral, the Tribunal found that the grievance and application were based on the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had the power and responsibility to apply human rights legislation.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The Ottawa Police Services Board and individual officers requested an order to sever two human rights complaints alleging racial profiling during traffic stops, which had been consolidated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal determined that while it is not bound by the Commission's decision to consolidate, the complaints share sufficient commonalities in facts, issues, and policies to warrant being heard together.

The request to sever the complaints was dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour against the respondent restaurant and its managers.

During cross-examination on the second day of the hearing, the complainant admitted to lying during his evidence-in-chief regarding his mitigation efforts and subsequent employment.

Following an adjournment, the Commission withdrew from carriage of the complaint and the complainant withdrew his complaint.

The Tribunal formally dismissed the complaint and reserved the respondents' right to speak to costs.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, a senior managerial employee, subjected her to a pattern of sexual harassment and discrimination over a two-year period.

The respondent failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included unwelcome touching, leering, and inappropriate comments, constituted gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages and expenses, and ordered the respondent to attend human rights training.

During a hearing for a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment, the complainant admitted under cross-examination to lying about his post-employment work history.

The respondents moved for an adjournment sine die to consider their position and potential motions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the seriousness of lying under oath and the need for all parties, including the Tribunal itself, to consider potential actions such as contempt proceedings or reporting the matter for perjury investigation.