Sharon Ffolkes Abrahams

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a final decision that partially upheld her human rights complaint but dismissed allegations of gender-based wage discrimination and discriminatory termination.

She argued the Tribunal denied natural justice by refusing certain document production, applied an insurmountable burden of proof, and misapprehended material facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The complainant and the Commission requested production of documents relating to complaints filed by the complainant under the Police Services Act.

The Toronto Police Association requested leave to intervene to make submissions on the production of these documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding it appropriate given the potential impact on the Association's members and its ability to provide their perspective.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of her complaints due to delay and not to refer six other complaints to a Tribunal for lack of sufficient evidence.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable, that conciliation was not attempted, and that she was denied procedural fairness and subjected to bias by investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's discretionary decisions were reasonable, conciliation had been attempted, and there was no merit to the allegations of bias or denial of procedural fairness.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the complainant's pleadings.

They argued the allegations were untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the complaint.

The Tribunal found that most of the impugned paragraphs formed part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint and did not expand its scope.

The Tribunal struck one portion of a paragraph on consent, declined to strike the rest, but ordered the complainant and the Commission to provide further particulars for five of the paragraphs.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside an order of a single judge.

The single judge had struck several respondents, documents, an affidavit, and claims for damages from the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge was correct in all respects, as the struck respondents were not proper parties, the struck documents and affidavit were not before the Commission, and the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to award damages on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his discrimination complaint against his former employer to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He named the employer, various employees, the Commission, Commission employees, and the Crown as respondents, seeking damages in tort and other relief.

The respondents brought motions to strike the claims and remove parties.

The Divisional Court held that it has no jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review.

The court also found that the Crown and Commission employees did not exercise a statutory power of decision and were not proper parties.

The respondents' motions were granted, the applicant's affidavit was struck, and the applicant's motions for additional information were dismissed.

The respondents sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of complaints alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's decision to refer the matter to a hearing was driven by a policy analyst's inappropriate focus on the respondents' lack of formal policies rather than evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith, and that the respondents suffered undue hardship.

Costs of $100,000 were awarded against the Commission.

Two Black employees filed human rights complaints alleging they were subjected to racial discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and discriminatory termination by their employer.

The complainants alleged that the new vice president made racist comments, tolerated racial graffiti, and fired them because of their race.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints, finding the complainants' evidence lacked credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the terminations were based on poor performance, insubordination, and inappropriate behaviour towards coworkers and customers, and that the employer took appropriate steps to address workplace graffiti.

The Tribunal heard four motions regarding complaints filed by children with autism alleging discrimination by Ontario in the provision of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) services.

Ontario moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims were based on an age under 18, which is excluded from the Code's definition of age.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints and the constitutional challenge to the age definition.

Ontario's alternative motion to stay the proceedings pending related Superior Court decisions was also denied.

The Commission and Complainants moved for substantive interim relief to compel Ontario to fund IBI treatment pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied this motion, ruling it lacked statutory authority under the Code or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to grant interlocutory injunctive relief.

Finally, the Tribunal determined on its own motion that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor complainants.

The complainant, a child with autism, brought a motion before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking interim injunctive relief to reinstate funding for his intensive behavioural intervention therapy.

Concurrently, the complainant and others obtained an interim interim mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice reinstating the same funding pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought was identical to that granted by the Court.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the factual underpinning for the urgency and irreparable harm no longer existed, and declined to decide the abstract question of its jurisdiction to grant such relief.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, sought access to his son's medical records through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of family or marital status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to usurp the Family Court's role in determining parental access rights.

The court found no discrimination and upheld the tribunal's procedural fairness, awarding $1,000 in costs to the Commission.

The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.

The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.

The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, as well as evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry ruled both types of evidence inadmissible.

The proposed similar fact evidence lacked a nexus to the material facts in dispute, and the academic credentials of the respondent were irrelevant to his ability to assess the complainants' performance.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the respondents objected to the admissibility of two types of evidence proposed by the Commission.

The Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, and evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry upheld the respondents' objections, ruling that both types of evidence were irrelevant to the material facts in dispute.

The similar fact evidence lacked sufficient similarity and nexus to the complaints, while the academic credentials evidence was collateral and went only to credibility.

The Board of Inquiry heard two pre-hearing motions in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought an adjournment because a personal respondent was required to travel to a conference, which the Board denied as it would cause undue delay and disrupt the proceedings.

The Commission sought disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which led to their termination.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the termination assessment.

The respondents requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because the personal respondent was required to travel to a conference.

The Commission requested disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which was the stated reason for their termination.

The Board of Inquiry denied the adjournment request, finding it would be too disruptive and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the respondents' assessment of the complainants' work performance.

The respondent in a sexual harassment complaint brought a motion for further production of the complainant's business and medical records.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the production of the complainant's business records, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of damages and mitigation, with their probative value outweighing privacy concerns.

However, the Board declined to order the production of the complainant's pre-existing medical and psychiatric records, finding them not arguably relevant and noting that assuming a person with a psychiatric history is less credible would be highly prejudicial and stereotypical.

The complainant, a young woman placed at the respondent's greenhouse through a youth employment program, alleged sexual harassment and reprisal by her employer.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer engaged in a course of vexatious comment and conduct, including persistent sexual propositions and unwanted touching, which he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome.

The Board also found that the employer's decision to send the complainant home early on her last day constituted a reprisal for her rejection of his sexual advances.

The respondents were ordered to pay $240 in lost wages and $2,750 in general damages for mental anguish.