The Tribunal admitted most of a proposed expert report on domestic and intimate partner violence, but redacted the section on K.L.’s circumstances as improper fact-finding.
On the balance of probabilities the complainant's sex was at least a factor in the reprimand and termination because the adverse actions flowed from targeted complaints of a supervisor who had demonstrated a desire to control her, the employer relied on those untested complaints without investigation or progressive discipline, and the dismissal was thus discriminatory under s.7 CHRA; remedies awarded: $13,000 pain and suffering, $1,500 special compensation for reckless discrimination, $29,999.97 lost wages, interest from 90 days after decision until payment, and an order to review/create and…
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as entirely moot because, after the Respondent's June 10, 2011 ruling recognizing a common‑law partner and dependent child, there was no longer a live controversy affecting the Complainant or his son; the record did not identify other victims or consented individuals such that the Tribunal could properly adjudicate the statutory validity/operability challenge or award public interest remedies, and judicial resources and separation of powers weighed against deciding a purely academic dispute.