Sharmila M. Clark

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed.

The applicant's union requested to intervene to address its actions regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled and dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the respondent's request for dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination in 2003.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the application until 2006, after his grievance arbitration was resolved unsatisfactorily, was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of citizenship, ethnic origin, and other grounds, culminating in his termination in 2004.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis of delay, prior settlement, and that the substance was dealt with in a prior arbitration.

The Tribunal found that raising the 2003 discipline was an abuse of process due to a prior settlement, and that failing to raise the discrimination allegations during the arbitration and waiting three years to file the application constituted an abuse of process and a delay not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging workplace reprisal, the respondents requested the exclusion of the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism.

The Tribunal applied the Mohan criteria and excluded the expert evidence, finding that testimony regarding the reluctance of racialized persons to complain and the history of police-minority relations was irrelevant to the reprisal complaint.

Furthermore, evidence regarding police culture and the treatment of complainants was deemed to be within the Tribunal's own expertise and therefore unnecessary.

The complainant, a civilian employee of the Toronto Police Services Board of Afghan descent, alleged he was subjected to a poisoned work environment following a discriminatory telephone message left by a colleague the day after September 11, 2001.

He also alleged historical discrimination dating back to 1994 and that the employer failed to adequately investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that the colleague who left the message discriminated against the complainant.

While the employer's initial investigation into the message was not discriminatory, the Tribunal found the employer breached the Code by failing to take adequate steps to quell workplace speculation that the complainant was a terrorist suspect, and by failing to investigate his allegations of historical discrimination.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment based on ethnic origin, the Tribunal addressed case management issues, an amendment to the complaint, and the admissibility of an expert witness.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the complaint to add the ground of creed, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal excluded the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism and Islamophobia, applying the Mohan criteria.

The Tribunal found the proposed evidence was within the adjudicator's knowledge and that the expert had improperly formed conclusions on the ultimate issues to be decided.

The applicants, police officers facing criminal charges, brought a motion for a publication ban and a sealing order regarding a confidential report by the Chief of Police.

The report was filed in support of an application for leave to serve notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The applicants argued that media access to the report would prejudice their right to a fair trial and risk witness tainting.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice, as the report was general in nature and alternative measures like challenges for cause were available.

The moving party, the Chief of Police, brought a motion to have two applications for judicial review heard at the same time pursuant to Rule 6.01(1).

Both applications arose from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board regarding the delay in serving notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The court found that the applications arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and shared common questions of law and fact.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results, the court granted the motion and ordered the applications to be heard together.