Sharon Folkes Abrahams

The complainant, a software sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in employment and reprisal after she discovered male colleagues were paid significantly more than her.

When she raised concerns about equal pay, the company's controller warned her that she would be fired 'on the spot' if head office found out she was talking about the law requiring equal pay.

The Tribunal found this constituted a threat of reprisal and created a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal also found the employer failed to adequately investigate her complaints of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discriminatory compensation, finding the pay differences were justified by the male colleagues' greater experience in enterprise sales, higher quotas, and tenure.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim that her termination was discriminatory or a reprisal, accepting the employer's explanation that she was terminated during a restructuring because she refused to relocate to Ottawa, where the majority of her accounts were located.

The complainant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

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 alleged discrimination in the provision of policing services on the basis of mental illness.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues, including requests to strike pleadings, requests for further particulars, and requests for document production.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings that unreasonably expanded the scope of the original complaint, such as allegations regarding police reference checks and historical arrests under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to hear allegations that internal police investigations of the complainant's complaints were discriminatory.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant to provide further particulars for certain allegations and ordered the production of specific documents related to the complainant's interactions with the police, declining to apply the O'Connor two-step process for production.

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.

In a human rights complaint, the parties raised preliminary issues regarding document disclosure, requests for particulars, and a motion to strike portions of the pleadings.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to address all preliminary requests together and issued directions for the parties to file their respective positions and materials.

The Commission requested a written hearing but the evidence indicated it had not served the corporate respondent at its mailing address listed on the Corporation Profile Report, having sent documents to the registered office address instead.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to serve the referral brief and notice of the request for written hearing to the correct mailing address and provide confirmation of delivery.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the request for a written hearing until after the deadline for the corporate respondent to advise if it intends to participate.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his race discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The Commission and Crown respondents brought motions to strike individual commissioners, employees, and Crown entities as parties, and to strike the applicant's affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motions, finding that only the Commission exercises a statutory power of decision, the Crown respondents had no role in the proceedings, and the applicant's affidavit contained inadmissible extrinsic evidence and argument not before the Commission.

The complainant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being terminated from an unfunded residency program in ophthalmology at the University of Toronto.

The Board of Inquiry found that the admissions process for funded positions was competitive and non-discriminatory.

The complainant was offered an unfunded position as an act of compassion but ultimately failed his examinations on multiple occasions.

The Board concluded that the complainant was evaluated fairly and dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of unlawful discrimination.