Tamara Joseph

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board and several individuals, the Tribunal considered whether to remove certain personal respondents.

The Commission advised it would not proceed against four individuals, who were subsequently removed.

The Tribunal then analyzed whether to remove a fifth individual, a superintendent, applying factors such as corporate vicarious liability and whether her individual conduct was a central issue.

Finding no compelling reason to keep her as a party and no prejudice in her removal, the Tribunal removed her.

The Tribunal declined to remove a sixth individual whose conduct was central to the allegations.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed the consolidation of complaints and bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Commission lacked the authority to combine a newly referred reprisal complaint with a main complaint already before the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal exercised its own power to consolidate the proceedings to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring personal respondents would not face liability for the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases to expedite the process and provided further case management directions.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by a school board and its staff brought several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission and complainant to provide a complete and exhaustive list of the specific material facts relied upon for each alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request for a medical examination of the complainant as premature.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings relating to the International Baccalaureate program generally and the school board's suspension appeal procedures, finding them outside the scope of the complaint, but retained specific factual allegations as potential context.

The Tribunal also made various orders regarding document production, denying the respondents' request to inspect the hard drives of the complainant's computers.