Selwyn A. Pieters

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability (marijuana addiction).

Following his arrest on drug-related charges, the applicant resigned his employment and entered into a plea bargain.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily resigned to secure a plea bargain and was not under duress.

The Tribunal held that permitting the applicant to resile from his resignation and challenge his criminal conviction in a human rights proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and Mike Earl.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) requested non-party intervenor status, arguing that the remedies sought, including reinstatement, and a request for disclosure of personal information about TPA members, could affect its collective agreement and members.

The applicant opposed the request, citing delay and potential disruption.

The Tribunal found no undue delay and granted the TPA non-party intervenor status to address the disclosure request and remedies as they may affect the collective agreement and its members.

The complainant, a former police constable with the Peel Regional Police Services Board, sought to add the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) as a respondent to her human rights complaint.

The complaint alleged discrimination and reprisals by Peel after she left to join the OPP.

The Tribunal applied the Payne test and found that the facts alleged, if proven, could not lead to a finding that the OPP violated the complainant's rights under the Code.

Furthermore, adding the OPP at this stage would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the complaint, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The request to add the OPP as a party was dismissed.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached minutes of settlement by returning him to his home position after a six-month developmental opportunity as a Labour Relations Specialist.

The grievor argued that he should not have been returned to his home position without proof of poor performance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement only entitled the grievor to a six-month developmental opportunity, after which employees normally return to their home positions.

The employer had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Tribunal determined the class of persons entitled to access youth records released by a Youth Court Judge's order.

The Tribunal defined the class broadly to include the Tribunal, parties, counsel, and necessary witnesses or experts, rejecting requests to restrict access further.

The Tribunal also ordered the Peel Regional Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to make full production and disclosure of all arguably relevant documents to facilitate mediation.

The applicant, a vice principal, sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigations Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers not to refer his complaint against a principal to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing.

As a mere complainant under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, he had no special or private interest in the decision beyond that of any member of the public.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants, two high school students, sought judicial review of a principal's decision to suspend them and transfer them to another school following a violent altercation.

The applicants argued the principal lacked jurisdiction to transfer them, breached procedural fairness, and violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal had the statutory authority to deny access and transfer students for safety reasons.

The court also held that there was no breach of procedural fairness and that the applicants failed to establish any Charter violations.

The complainant, a minor at the time of the events, brought a motion for a publication ban on his name.

The complainant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the school board and police services following an incident on school property that led to his expulsion and criminal charges.

Because the complainant was charged as a minor, the Youth Criminal Justice Act applied, which prohibits publishing the name of a young person dealt with under the Act.

The Tribunal granted a temporary publication ban on the complainant's name, noting the principles underlying the legislation, to remain in effect until mediation or further submissions.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received an anonymous racist and threatening letter at her home, one of several sent to minority employees at the Toronto Jail.

She suffered mental stress, went on leave, and received WSIB benefits.

The parties agreed on the facts and asked the Public Service Grievance Board to determine the appropriate remedy.

The employer argued that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precluded further remedy for loss of income.

The Board held that the human rights guarantee against racial harassment was an implicit term of the employment contract.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to compensate for financial losses and mental distress flowing from the breach of this contractual guarantee, distinct from the WSIB's jurisdiction over health injuries.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the difference between her WSIB benefits and her regular income, plus $20,000 for mental distress, but declined to award costs.

The respondents brought a motion to continue a sealing order over the court file in an application for judicial review of decisions to exclude and transfer students following an alleged violent incident.

The respondents argued that the sealing order was necessary under the Education Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a complete sealing order was not necessary, as a less intrusive alternative was available.

The court rescinded the sealing order but directed that the court file be edited to remove the names and identifying information of the accused, the victim, and the witnesses.

The appellant, a university student, was suspended by the President of York University for alleged misconduct without a hearing.

The appellant sued the President and the University, pleading misfeasance in a public office.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the President was not a public officer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the tort of misfeasance in a public office is restricted to public officers subject to the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and the claim was permitted to proceed.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with his discrimination complaint.

The applicant had resigned pursuant to an agreement to withdraw disciplinary charges, but filed a human rights complaint after failing to secure employment with another police force and being denied reinstatement.

The Commission dismissed the complaint as vexatious under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable given the applicant's extensive disciplinary record and the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

The appellants were previously successful in their appeal to stay a libel action brought by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the appeal and the proceeding before the motion judge on a partial indemnity scale.

The parties could not agree on the quantum of costs for the motion.

The appellants sought $32,773.37.

Noting that the case involved a novel application of the real and substantial connection test in a libel context and was a matter of public interest, the court fixed the costs of the motion at a modest $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent sued the Washington Post and three of its reporters for defamation regarding two articles published in 1997.

At the time of publication, the respondent lived in Kenya and the newspaper had minimal circulation in Ontario.

The respondent moved to Ontario three years later and commenced the action.

The appellants brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and found no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario.

The appeal was allowed and the action was stayed.