Berend Hovius

The complainants, two gay men in long-term same-sex relationships, alleged that the Ministry of Transportation discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation by requiring them to obtain and pay for a safety standards certificate when transferring vehicle ownership to or from their partners.

Opposite-sex spouses were exempt from this requirement.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ministry's actions constituted discrimination in the provision of services based on sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Ministry to compensate the complainants and to cease its practice of automatically excluding same-sex couples from the spousal exemption.

The complainant was hired as a full-time counter hostess at a submarine sandwich shop.

After four days of training, the owner learned she was pregnant and terminated her employment, claiming she would be unable to perform the physical duties of the job.

The Board of Inquiry found that the termination constituted discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent's bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defence was rejected, as the job did not require heavy lifting and the respondent made no effort to accommodate the complainant.

The Board awarded special damages for lost wages and lost maternity benefits, general damages of $500, and pre-judgment interest, but limited the economic loss award because the complainant failed to fully mitigate her damages by refusing the respondent's offer to return to work after the birth.

The complainant alleged age discrimination against his employer and union because a pre-retirement vacation provision in the collective agreement granted extra vacation time only to employees aged 61 and over with 25 years of service.

The complainant had the required service but was not 61.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the provision constituted direct age discrimination, it was protected under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Code as a special program designed to relieve the hardship older workers face when transitioning to retirement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a young woman with cerebral palsy, rented a basement apartment from the respondent.

The respondent landlord engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including calling the complainant a 'retard', turning off lights while she was on the stairs, and issuing an illegal eviction notice, because the complainant did not conform to the landlord's expectations of how a handicapped person should behave.

The Board of Inquiry found that the landlord harassed the complainant because of her handicap contrary to s. 2(2) of the Human Rights Code, and ordered the landlord to pay special and general damages.

The complainant, a spray painter, became pregnant and requested a transfer to an area without paint fumes based on her doctor's advice.

The employer initially accommodated her by moving her to a packing position but subsequently required her to take an unpaid leave of absence, citing concerns about air quality throughout the plant.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's refusal to continue accommodating the complainant constituted adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex.

The employer failed to establish that continued employment in the packing area presented an undue risk, and thus did not fulfill its duty to reasonably accommodate the complainant's special needs as a pregnant worker.

The employer was ordered to pay damages for lost wages and mental anguish.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint due to a six-year delay between the filing of the complaint and the appointment of the Board of Inquiry.

The Commission objected to the respondents calling evidence regarding the reasons for the delay, arguing it was irrelevant.

The Board of Inquiry ruled that evidence regarding the delay, the reasons given by the Commission, and the respondents' attempts to expedite the matter are relevant to determining whether the delay constitutes an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board allowed the respondents to present their evidence.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint of racial discrimination, the Commission sought to compel a respondent to produce personal notes at a preliminary hearing prior to the hearing on the merits.

The Board of Inquiry set aside the summons, ruling that section 12(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act only permits a tribunal to compel the production of documents in evidence at the actual hearing on the merits, not for pre-hearing discovery.

The Board also held that the summons was not overly broad, but that the Commission must call the summoned individual as a witness to testify if it wishes to introduce the documents into evidence.

The complainant alleged that her employer sexually harassed her by making sexual advances, touching her inappropriately, and engaging in offensive verbal behaviour.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding the complainant's testimony to be uncorroborated and inconsistent.

The Board preferred the respondent's evidence, concluding that while the workplace language was occasionally coarse, no sexual solicitation or harassment occurred.