|
OMBUDSMAN
ONTARIO
Executive Summaries
Executive Summary
Own Motion Investigation
into
the complaint of Ms. P regarding
the Ontario Human Rights Commission
-
Ms. P brought a complaint to the Ombudsman contending that
the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) was wrong to conclude that a
complaint she had brought to the OHRC could be dealt with more appropriately
under the Workers' Compensation Act. She felt it was unreasonable
for the OHRC to exercise its discretion under s.34(1)(a) of the Human
Rights Code not to deal with her complaint and asked the Ombudsman
to investigate this issue and also whether the OHRC had failed to consider
the issues raised in her application to the OHRC for reconsideration of
its original decision.
-
The Ombudsman's investigation involved a review of OHRC documents
from the original complaint. These showed that Ms. P filed a human rights
complaint in 1995 against her former employer alleging a breach of her
right to equal treatment without discrimination because of handicap. Ms.
P complained that she had suffered an injury at work and her employment
contract was terminated due to her handicap.
-
The results of the Ombudsman's investigation showed there
was no basis for the decision by the OHRC to apply s. 34(1)(a) with reference
to the Worker's Compensation Act. The Ombudsman noted that there
appeared to be no rational connection between the evidence in the file,
the legislation in question and the reasons given by the OHRC for its decision.
In a tentative investigation summary sent to the OHRC, the Ombudsman concluded
the initial decision on the human rights complaint was wrong. With respect
to the reconsideration decision by the OHRC, the Ombudsman found the OHRC
ignored Ms. P's submission concerning the factual and legal basis underlying
the original decision and the question of integrity this raised about the
OHRC's administrative process.
-
In light of Ms. P's particularly compelling circumstances
and the evidence from this investigation, and in view of the level of compensation
generally available in human rights matters, the Ombudsman recommended
the OHRC pay Ms. P $4,000 and provide her with an apology.
-
The OHRC responded to the Ombudsman's investigative summary
by acknowledging it had erred in both the original and reconsideration
decisions. However, it held the view that if it had considered Ms. P's
original case on the merits, it would not have referred her complaint to
a Board of Inquiry for disposition. The OHRC stated it was prepared to
extend an apology to Ms. P for its errors but did not find it appropriate
to accept the Ombudsman's additional recommendation to compensate Ms. P.
-
In her final report the Ombudsman noted that a proper investigation
of Ms. P's complaint was never conducted and in the absence of this, it
is a matter of pure speculation whether the case would have proceeded to
a Board of Inquiry. The offer of such an opinion as a reason for not providing
compensation is at odds with the OHRC acceptance of responsibility for
its actions, and in the Ombudsman's view is therefore "simply not valid."
The Ombudsman therefore recommended in her final report that the OHRC provide
Ms. P with an apology and $4,000 compensation.
-
The OHRC did not take action which the Ombudsman considered
adequate or appropriate. Following notice to the office of the Premier,
the Ombudsman is tabling a final report with the Legislature pursuant to
Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act.
Return to top
Executive Summary
Own Motion Investigation of the
Timeliness of
the Ontario Human Rights
Commission's Investigative
Process
-
In January this year the Ombudsman initiated an own-motion
investigation of the timeliness of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
(OHRC, or the Commission) investigative process. This investigation followed
a report issued in May 1998 in which the Ombudsman concluded the time taken
by the Commission to complete its investigation of complaints of discrimination
was unacceptable. The current investigation was launched as a result of
concerns by the Ombudsman about data supplied by the OHRC during this past
year and further complaints about delay received from clients contacting
her office about the Commission.
-
The results of this investigation show the OHRC has been
unable to achieve caseload goals set for the first two years of its current
three-year plan. The Commission originally set a goal of achieving a current
caseload - with the average age of a case at nine months and the length
of time to resolve a case at 12 months - by March 31, 2000. The Commission
acknowledged it has not come close to achieving an "inventory-steady state"
and during the investigation revised its projections to show a current
caseload two years later than its original goal of 2000. The Ombudsman
noted these revised projections included a revised definition of current
caseload allowing the 40% of cases that take longer than six months to
close to have no time limit on when these cases must close to remain current.
-
The Ombudsman noted in the final analysis section of the
report that the Commission's projections on the reduction of its inventory
of cases fluctuated dramatically during the course of the investigation
and likewise through the implementation of its own three-year plan. She
expressed the view that she had "good reason to be wary of the Commission's
projections" and noted that although the Commission maintained that the
number of cases in its inventory is not the most important issue of caseload
currency, this issue is of vital importance to those individuals who are
relegated to the inventory.
-
The Ombudsman stated her view that, based on the evidence
in the report, the Commission's continuing failure to investigate complaints
in a timely manner undermines the enforcement of human rights in Ontario.
She expressed concern that in the absence of timely investigations of alleged
violations of human rights, members of the public will lose faith in the
Commission's ability to fulfill its mandate, and in the end human rights
violations will go unaddressed.
-
The Ombudsman recommended that the OHRC take all necessary
steps, including requesting additional resources, to ensure it is able
to investigate complaints in a timely manner. She also recommended the
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation urgently address the continuing
omission of the OHRC to investigate complaints in a timely manner, and
take all necessary steps to ensure the Commission is able to investigate
complaints in a timely manner, including providing it with the capability
and resources to fulfill its mandate effectively.
-
The OHRC and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
did not take action which the Ombudsman considered adequate or appropriate.
Following notice to the office of the Premier, the Ombudsman is tabling
a final report with the Legislature pursuant to Section 21 of the Ombudsman
Act.
Return to top
|
