Latif v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), (1994) 79 O.A.C. 33 (DC)

• Judge: Hartt, O'Driscoll and Moldaver, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 79 O.A.C. 33 (DC)

Latif v. HRC (1994), 79 O.A.C. 33 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Anita Hall (complainant/respondent in appeal) and Ontario Human Rights Commission (respondent in appeal) v. A-1 Auto Collision and Auto Service (respondent) and Mohammed Latif (respondent/appellant in appeal)

(File No. 894/93)

Indexed As: Latif v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Hartt, O'Driscoll and Moldaver, JJ.

November 29, 1994.

Summary:

In 1985, after five weeks on the job, Hall was ter­minated from her employment as a sec­retary/receptionist. In 1986, Hall filed a sexual harassment suit against the company and Latif, the manager co-owner. A-1 ceased operation. In 1991, a board of inquiry was appointed pursuant to the Human Rights Code. Latif applied for judi­cial review to prohibit the board from pro­ceeding because of delay. The Attorney General applied to set aside the application for judicial review on the ground that it was premature.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 55 O.A.C. 204, dismissed Latif's application to stay the proceedings as pre­mature. Latif then applied to the board to stay the proceedings because of the inordi­nate delay by the Commission. The board declined to grant the stay. A differently constituted board was then appointed to hear the merits of Hall's complaint. The board gave judgment for Hall against Latif per­sonally. Latif appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 42

General - Violation of human rights - What constitutes - In March of 1985, Anita Hall was employed by A-1 Colli­sion as receptionist - Latif (manager and co-owner of A-1) terminated Hall's em­ployment in April - In July of 1986, Hall filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleging harassment in the workplace, sexual solicitation by Latif and reprisal for rejection of sexual solici­tation - A-1 ceased operation - In 1991, a Board of Inquiry was appointed - Hall alleged that Latif sexually harassed her at work and made suggestive telephone calls to her at home - Latif submitted that Hall fabricated the complaint because of a wage dispute - The Human Rights Board of Inquiry gave judgment for Hall against Latif - An appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Divisional Court.

Civil Rights - Topic 3191

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Delay - In March of 1985, Anita Hall was employed by A-1 Collision as secretary/receptionist - Latif (manager and co-owner of A-1) termin­ated Hall's employment in April - In July of 1986, Hall filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleg­ing sexual harassment, etc. - A-1 ceased operation - In 1991, a Board of Inquiry was appointed - Latif applied to have the complaint stayed because the Commis­sion's delay in investigating the complaint denied him the right to make a full answer and defence - The Human Rights Board of Inquiry declined to stay the proceeding and gave judgment for Hall - Latif appealed on the ground of delay - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 21 to 23.

Damage Awards - Topic 2024

Exemplary or punitive damages - Inten­tional violation of human rights - In March of 1985, Anita Hall was employed by A-1 Collision as receptionist - Latif (manager and co-owner of A-1) termi­nated Hall's employment in April - In July of 1986, Hall filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleg­ing harassment in the workplace, sexual solicitation by Latif and reprisal for rejec­tion of sexual solicitation - A-1 ceased operation - In 1991, a Board of Inquiry was appointed - The Human Rights Board of Inquiry gave judgment for Hall against Latif ($1,000 for loss of wages, $3,500 for mental anguish) - Latif, now a limousine driver with three children, appealed the award on the ground the $3,500 was ex­cessive and that the award should have been against A-1 - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal - See para­graphs 29 to 31.

Practice - Topic 7029.3

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment to - Successful party - Exceptions - Delay or prolonging proceedings - In March of 1985, Anita Hall was employed by A-1 Collision as a receptionist - Latif (manager and co-owner of A-1) termi­nated Hall's employment in April - Hall filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleging sexual harass­ment, etc. - In 1991, a Board of Inquiry was appointed - Latif applied to have the complaint stayed because the Commis­sion's delay in investigating the complaint denied him the right to make a full answer and defence - The Human Rights Board of Inquiry declined to stay the proceeding and gave judgment for Hall - Latif appealed on the ground of delay - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal but declined to award costs because of the delay - See paragraphs 33 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Latif v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 204; 17 C.H.R.R. D/198 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Hyman v. Southam Murray Printing Ltd. (1981), 3 C.H.R.R. D/617 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 21].

Gale v. Miracle Food Mart (No. 2) (1992), 17 C.H.R.R. D/495 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 21].

Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) - see Gale v. Miracle Food Mart (No. 2).

Nisbett v. Human Rights Commission (Man.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 101; 41 W.A.C. 101; 18 C.H.R.R. D/504 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1993), 166 N.R. 78; 95 Man.R.(2d) 320; 70 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. D.A. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 295; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; 116 N.R. 1; 71 Man.R.(2d) 81; 44 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, generally [para. 2].

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, sect. 7(2), sect. 7(3)(a), sect. 7(3)(b), sect. 41(1) [para. 2]; sect. 41(1)(b) [para. 31]; sect. 41(5) [para. 17]; sect. 42 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Russell G. Juriansz, for the appellant, Latif;

Catheryn Pike, for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

This appeal was heard on November 22 and 23, 1994, before Hartt, O'Driscoll and Moldaver, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The following oral reasons were endorsed on the appeal record and released on No­vember 29, 1994.