Take Note

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES — RACE, COLOUR AND PLACE OF ORIGIN — DISABILITY — PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES — SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION — BURDEN OF PROOF / Decision on a complaint of discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry and disability. The Tribunal found that asking the homeless and/or drug addicted to leave a public park or other facility customarily available to the public constitutes adverse treatment. The Tribunal also found that the complainants' evidence raised the possibility that the actions of the DVBIA may have an adverse impact in relation to protected grounds of discrimination. However, the complainants did not provide evidence to establish that the respondents' actions have done so in practice. Thus, they did not establish a connection between the adverse treatment experienced by the members of the class and their membership in a protected group. Dismissed: Feb. 7, 2012.

JURISDICTION — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS / Interim decision on whether an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction when a challenge is made to a decision relating to benefits under a statutory scheme. The Tribunal found that (1) it has jurisdiction over an application alleging denial of statutory financial benefits violates the Code, even if this was done by decision; (2) it does not have jurisdiction over an application against a neutral third party deciding a dispute between others when the doctrine of judicial immunity applies; (3) it is not precluded from hearing the application on the basis that the respondent has exclusive jurisdiction; and (4) it does not have the power to review decisions under benefit programs to determine if they are correct under the legislation, regulations, or policies governing the program. Jan. 17, 2012.

DISABILITY — BENEFITS — REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION — DAMAGES / Decision on a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The Tribunal found that the complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to the respondent's denial of short-term disability benefits and failure to return the complainant to work. However, the complaint has established a prima facie case of discrimination in the termination of his employment. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not meet the duty to accommodate short of undue hardship. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $10,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect and to reimburse the complainant for his medical expenses. Allowed: Jan. 13, 2012.

DISABILITY — DAMAGES / Decision on an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (developmental disability). The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect, $2,678.50 for lost income and ordered the respondent's owners, managers, and supervisors to complete the Human Rights Commission's online training module on human rights. Allowed: Jan. 12, 2012.

COMPLAINTS — JURISDICTION — PROCEDURE / Decision on whether a complaint alleging discrimination in services on the basis of place of origin should be dismissed after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing. The Tribunal concluded that it has jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint after a hearing. The Tribunal found that the complainant's motive in filing the complaint was to gain an advantage in her feud with her former husband and her vendetta against the respondent's employees and contractors. The complaint was dismissed because it was filed for improper motives or in bad faith. The Tribunal awarded $3,500 in costs against the complainant for her improper conduct. Dismissed: Dec. 1, 2011.

DISABILITY — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS — HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALS / Decision on an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability (Labour Market Re-Entry program changed because of a learning disability). The Tribunal found that the applicant’s learning disability was not explored and not taken into account in an assessment of the suitable employment or business options. The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect and ordered that the respondent amend it’s LMR policy documents so that any references to the requirement to have regard to non-work related disabilities in conducting a LMR assessment, and to the respondent’s accommodation of disabilities in a LMR plan, include non-physical disabilities such as a learning disability. Allowed: Nov. 22, 2011.

APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW — EQUAL PAY / Appeal of decision 70 C.H.R.R. D/302, 2010 FCA 56; aff’g 62 C.H.R.R. D/378, 2008 FC 223; rev’g 53 C.H.R.R. D/279, 2005 CHRT 39 which allowed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex where female-dominated jobs were undervalued. The Tribunal had allowed the complaint, but reduced the damages awarded by 50 percent because of “lower reasonable reliability status” of the relevant job information. Following the dissenting reasons of Evans J.A. in the F.C.A., the SCC allowed the appeal on the merits, but dismissed the appeal of the remedy awarded. Allowed in part: Nov. 17, 2011.

APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS — HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALS — JURISDICTION — INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES — COSTS / Appeal of (sub nom. Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat) (2009), 67 C.H.R.R. D/381, 2009 FCA 309; rev'g (2008), 67 C.H.R.R. D/366, 2008 FC 118; aff'g in part (2006),CHRR Doc. 06-757, 2006 CHRT 49, which awarded $47,000 in partial compensation for the complainant's legal costs. The F.C.A. held that the Tribunal had no authority to award costs. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the text, context and purpose of the legislation clearly show that there is no authority in the Tribunal to award legal costs and that there is no other reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions. Dismissed: Oct. 28, 2011.