Law Times

Law Times • JuLy 23, 2012 Case took nine years Triffon had beef with gov't, courts NEWS Continued from page 1 this example of my claim as a real awakening that they have an obligation to protect and make human rights a very seri- ous offence in Ontario, tells Law Times. "If the tribunal showed more " Farris teeth and better capacity at doing their jobs, I think employers and employees will be better off. out a key conclusion at the tri- bunal was the finding that McK- eague and Leonard didn't recog- nize and address the poisoned work atmosphere and that this environment was a factor in Far- ris' subsequent termination. The Divisional Court said that "not recognizing and addressing a poisoned work environment is in and of itself a violation of s. 5(1) of the code. Furthermore, it was Mr. McKeague and Mr. Leonard who decided to terminate Ms. Farris' employment rather than address the poisoned work environment, a termination that the tribunal expressly found to be contrary to the Code. Given their distinct and separate duties as managers to ad- dress the poisoned work environ- ment and the fact that it was their decision to terminate Ms. Farris, any finding that their role was not ' The Divisional Court pointed " central' in what occurred would be unreasonable. ment, I felt management was in a position to do something about it," says Farris. "If management isn't going to take the appropriate action, then no one is protected. The court also wrote: "Given "When I was going to manage- " " the overriding purpose of the hu- man rights legislation, to provide a remedy to the complainant, it is on its face unreasonable for the tribunal to have limited its reme- dial relief to an award of damages against an inoperative corpora- tion without providing a reason that specifically addresses its find- ings regarding Mr. McKeague and Mr. Leonard. case to the tribunal to appor- tion liability. Farris has also brought a The court has remitted the " wrongful dismissal lawsuit. There' s no trial date for that action. The Divisional Court deci- sion could be relevant for other human rights claims where cor- porations no longer operate. One case is Terri-Lynn Garrie' Continued from page 1 claim against her former em- ployer, Janus Joan Inc. Garrie, who has a developmental dis- ability, worked for Janus Joan for 10 years, earning only $1 or $1.25 per hour throughout that time. The tribunal awarded Gar- rie $15,000 aſter finding the em- ployer discriminated against her by firing her in October 2009. The company also fired other workers with disabilities within a month but continued to employ workers without disabilities. The company had reportedly s closed with evidence before the tribunal that a new one with a similar name was operating in St. Catharines, Ont. While the tribunal held the individuals in Farris' matter liable, it didn't do so against the individual owner of the company at issue in Gar- rie' for Garrie through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, notes the "difficulty in Garrie is that the individual respondent is personally bankrupt, so proceed- ings against her are automatically stayed. Had this not been the case, Farris could have been helpful to argue that the tribunal at first in- stance dismissed the application against her without giving proper consideration to the fact that the corporate respondent was known to have been shut down. As it stands, the confirmation of the principle regarding the need for an effective remedy may be help- ful in trying [to] trace the assets and management of the first com- pany into the second. s case. Kate Stephenson, counsel ris decision will affect other hu- man rights claims. "I don't think there' Not everyone believes the Far- " setting about the Divisional Court decision," says Arie Gaertner, counsel for McKeague and Leon- ard. He says the decision recon- ciles the facts in this case with existing human rights legislation. The more unique aspect to Gaert- ner is how long this case has taken. The complaint began in 2003 s anything new or precedent and involved more than 58 days of evidence as well as additional days for submissions. OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE MARKETPLACE TORONTO: Prestigious professional office in the heart of Yorkville, Canada's premiere shopping and entertainment district! High-end penthouse unit with spectacular city views, private elevator, receptionist area, boardroom with city views, bathroom, kitchen 24/7 access, business support services, high quality furniture, cleaning service. Well- suited for accountants, lawyers, entrepreneurs or other professionals. Price includes utilities, extra fee for phone, internet, fax and copier. Starting at $1,000/month. Please contact admin@tagstmichel.com for more information. PROFESSIONAL CHAMBERS - OFFICE FOR RENT KEELE/FINCH FUTURE SUBWAY STATION: from $400/month Fully furnished/tel/internet/boardroom/law clerk. tel. 416-907-6766, email: general@js.ca To advertise call 416-649-8875 Untitled-3 1 www.lawtimesnews.com 12-07-17 10:20 AM LT juror.' In that case, it wouldn't qualify as obstruction because the judge is saying he isn't really obstructing the jury selection process by doing that." In his e-mail to the ministry, Triffon from jury duty based on his e-mail to the ministry, the let- ters, his circular, and his arrest for attempting to obstruct justice ear- lier that morning. According to Bovard' Triffon said he had a letter from his doctor to show the court and demanded to appear before a judge when he arrived for jury duty in order to present it, Bovard noted in his decision. According to the ruling, the letter was from Amy Freedman, a psychologist who had been treat- ing him since 2003. In her letter, Freedman described Triffon as "generally hostile to government, the police, and the court system" and recommended excusing him from jury duty. Bovard' ronto Public Library had banned Triffon for eight weeks in 2007 for "unacceptable behaviour" involv- ing a black person and made that fact apparent in a letter to the To- ronto sheriff' s decision noted the To- his date for jury duty. In May 2011, Superior Court Justice John McMahon excused s office shortly before Triffon told McMahon the courts had treated him very badly 20 years ago and that "ever since then, my sole agenda has been . . . to get revenge on the courts, and, indi- rectly, against the government for various things." The Crown had argued Triffon s ruling, was attempting to subvert the jury selection process and a potential trial Crown also maintained Triffon was trying to blackmail the court and usurp its function during the selection process by not allowing the judge to decide who would be on the jury panel. But Bovard disagreed and found flaws in the Crown's ar- through his actions. The gument. "I find that by asserting that he would use his vote, position, and influence as a jury member to cause a 'hung jury' irrespective of the evidence at trial, Mr. Trif- fon merely threatened to obstruct justice should he be selected to serve on a jury, court and he did not have any con- tact with potential jury members. I find that the evidence shows that Mr. Triffon was attempting to get out of jury duty, not to obstruct justice by causing a hung jury. Triffon's counsel had argued he "He did not bring his circular to " wrote Bovard. " was merely threatening to attempt to obstruct justice and that there was no authority for the idea that "the initial jury selection process, prior to trial, is a judicial process." Bovard, however, found oth- erwise on that question. "Un- der the Juries Act, is authorized and directed to select a group of citizens from which counsel will pick juries according to the procedure in the Criminal Code referred to above, the sheriff this task before a judge; however, I find that the act contains provi- sions that demonstrate that the sheriff does this 'under the au- thority of a court of justice' and is subject to the direction of a Superior Court judge. "The sheriff does not perform " he wrote. " ANNOUNCEMENT LT PAGE 5

• Cover