ordered reinstatement of an employee many years after his/her dismissal.^174 In Kreiger
v. Toronto Police Services Board, the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of a police
officer with a disability.^175 The Tribunal noted that when reinstatement is a viable
option, it is sometimes the only remedy that can give effect to the goal of human rights
legislation, which is to put the applicant in the position that s/he would have been in had
the discrimination not taken place. An award of wages lost as a result of discrimination
is also available at the Tribunal.
D. InterestThe Tribunal has awarded pre-judgment interest in contravention of settlement
applications.^176 Pursuant to section 128(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, prejudgment
interest runs from the date the cause of action arose to the date of the order. The
Tribunal will award post-judgment interest, pursuant to section 129(1) of the Courts of
Justice Act. Post-judgment interest is payable on any amount of the general damage
award and award for lost wages. The applicable interest rates may be found on the
website of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario.
E. Costs
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs.^177
X. CONCLUSION
Human rights and disability is a complex and rapidly evolving area of law. It is an area
that will continue to develop as our understanding of disability progresses, as new
disabilities emerge, and as new technologies enable different forms of accommodation.
(^174) Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440 (CanLII).
(^175) Krieger v. Toronto Police Services Board, supra note 172.
(^176) See, for example: Malabre v. LMC Endocrinology Centres (Toronto) Ltd., 2013 HRTO 385 (CanLII);
Ahearn v. North Hill Dental Center, 2012 HRTO 2166 (CanLII); Medeiros v. Cambridge Canvas Centre,
2011 HRTO 1519 (CanLII); Fakira v. London Roof Truss, 2011 HRTO 365 (CanLII);Saunders v. Toronto
Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1571 177 , 2010 HRTO 2516 (CanLII).
Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405 (CanLII); in Canada (Canadian
Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 (CanLII), the Supreme Court
recently considered whether the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdiction to order costs in
respect of its proceedings.