"There are currently 38 terrorist prisoners eligible for continuing detention under the HRTO
(45) See for example McMahon v Wilkinson, 2015 HRTO 1019 at para 1, 81 CHRR D/265 where the complainants filed under six grounds, including gender identity and gender expression, but not sex.
(88) Brodeur v Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2013 HRTO 1229 at para 1,  OHRTD No 1235 (QL).
The qualitative and quantitative comparative study found in the second part of this article limits its scope to claims before the HRTO
and the BCHRT.
See Gungor v Canadian Auto Workers Local 88, 2011 HRTO
1760 at paras 48-58.
(77) Yousufi v Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO
351 at para 17, 67 CHRR D/96 [Yousufi cited to neutral citation].
See Swain v MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP, 2015 HRTO
In Forrester v Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 2006 HRTO
13, (CanLII) [Ontario], when a police strip search was conducted improperly, the complainant was successful in a case of discrimination on the basis of sex.
(100) Chu v Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO
Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2006 HRTO
32, 58 C.H.R.R.
(133) Even more controversially, in Barker v Service Employees International Union, Local I Ontario, the HRTO
agreed to hear Barker's complaint even though her termination grievance had been dismissed by an experienced and respected arbitrator, on the ground that the arbitrator had "not appropriately dealt with the human rights components of this case".
Clennon v Toronto East General Hospital, 2009 HRTO
1242 at paras 104-106 (available on QL).