Bernard Adell

The complainant, a coffee server, alleged that her employer sexually harassed her and discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

The respondent asked the complainant for a date and, upon learning she was a lesbian, persistently questioned her about her sexual preferences and attempted to persuade her to have a heterosexual relationship with him.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's conduct constituted both sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Human Rights Code.

Applying the Torres criteria, the Board awarded the complainant $1,500 in general damages, noting the harassment was entirely verbal and of short duration.

The complainant was discharged from her employment as a salesperson shortly after being diagnosed with Crohn's disease.

The employer alleged the termination was due to poor sales performance and a desire to hire more male staff, though the latter was admitted to be a false excuse.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's disability was a significant factor in her discharge, as her performance issues were aggravated by her illness.

The employer failed to consider any accommodative measures, such as part-time work or split shifts, thereby breaching the duty to accommodate short of undue hardship under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded compensation for lost wages and general damages.

The respondents in a sexual harassment complaint brought two preliminary motions before the Board of Inquiry.

The first motion sought a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied to prevent further delay.

The second motion sought greater particulars, full witness statements, witness names, and an adjournment.

The Board ordered the Commission to provide a more precise statement of the allegations within five days but denied the request for witness statements and names, finding them privileged and beyond the Board's power to order as discovery.

The request for an adjournment was also denied.

Three former employees filed human rights complaints alleging religious harassment and discrimination by their employer, a chartered accountancy firm run by born-again Christians.

The employer frequently discussed religion, displayed religious messages, criticized Catholic beliefs, and solicited donations for a religious charity.

The Board of Inquiry found that this conduct amounted to religious harassment for two of the complainants, as the employer knew or ought to have known the conduct was unwelcome.

The third complainant's harassment claim was dismissed because she had initially engaged willingly in religious discussions and failed to make it known when the conduct became unwelcome.

The claims of discriminatory dismissal were dismissed, as the terminations were based on poor job performance.

The employer was ordered to pay $1,000 to each of the two successful complainants for mental anguish.

The complainant, a single mother on social assistance, alleged that the respondents refused to rent her an apartment because she was receiving public assistance.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' refusal was indeed based on the complainant's source of income, violating sections 2(1) and 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to post human rights cards and pay the complainant $275.79 in special damages and $1,000 in general damages for mental anguish.