See C.N.R. v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114, in the context of the Tribunal ordering an employment equity program on an employer in a systemic discrimination case. 9 Ibid., at 1145 where the order must be "rationally designed" to the discriminatory practice. 10 Entrop v. Imperial Oil Limited (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 18, at paras. 46 and 57. 11 Turnbull v. Famous Players Inc., [2001] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 20, at para. 235. 12 Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Dumont, 2002 FCT 1280, at para. 14. 13 See Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 21 and 2007 HRTO 23 for the appointment of a monitor. See also McKinnon v. Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), [2002] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 22 for the appointment of a Compliance Committee to monitor compliance of orders at a detention centre, and of a third party to develop, oversee and monitor training programs. 14 2008 FCA 170. See also Dreaver v. Pankiw, 2009 CHRT 8; judicial review application heard on November 24, 2009. 15 In closing argument, EC's counsel filed a written document entitled "Remedies Consented to by Elections Canada ("EC")." 16 Section 65 of the CHRA. 17 This case involved remedies made under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the realization of minority language education rights in Nova Scotia. 18 National Capital Commission v. Brown, 2008 FC 733, at para. 148; reversed on other grounds, 2009 FCA 273. 19 Subsection 53(2) of the CHRA empowers the Tribunal to make an Order against a respondent only. PARTIES OF RECORD TRIBUNAL FILE: T1373/10308 STYLE OF CAUSE: James Peter Hughes v. Elections Canada October 5 to 9, 2009 DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario Last written submissions filed on October 23, 2009. DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: APPEARANCES: February 12, 2010 2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII) 8