43 total
Motion for non-suit dismissed; Commission established a prima facie case of discrimination in services.
The respondents brought a motion for non-suit at the conclusion of the Commission's case, arguing the evidence failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the provision of a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.
The adjudicator exercised his discretion to allow the respondents to bring the motion without electing to forego calling evidence.
However, the adjudicator dismissed the motion on its merits, finding that the testimony, if believed, provided a sufficient nexus between the events complained of and a prohibited ground of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.
Adjudicator recused himself due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from consulting work against implicated third party.
The respondent, Kimberly-Clark Inc., brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The adjudicator had disclosed that he was acting as a non-witness consultant for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Manulife Financial, a company that provided services to the respondent and whose actions were implicated in the human rights complaint.
The adjudicator granted the recusal motion, finding that his inability to provide full details of his consulting arrangement due to solicitor-client privilege, combined with the potential need to rule on Manulife's status in the proceedings, established a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The respondent's request for an order directing the appointment of a specific type of substitute adjudicator was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal orders production of medical records but refuses to compel physical examination of complainant.
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.
