D.A. Soberman

The complainant, a plant supervisor with eight years of service, was summarily dismissed by the general manager.

The Board of Inquiry found that the general manager harboured animosity towards the complainant because she was a woman, and that her sex was a material element in the decision to dismiss her.

The corporate respondent and the general manager were found jointly and severally liable for sex discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $24,240 for lost wages, $2,500 for mental anguish, and interest.

The complainant, a black man from Trinidad, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by refusing to rent an apartment to him because of his race.

The complainant and his fiancée were told the rent was $350 instead of the advertised $300, and later told the apartment was rented.

Subsequent telephone inquiries by white individuals revealed the apartment was still available at $300, while an inquiry by a West Indian individual was told it was unavailable.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's witnesses credible and the respondent's evidence implausible, concluding that the respondent discriminated against the complainant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $350 in compensation for loss of dignity.

The complainant alleged that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it terminated her part-time employment and failed to consider her for a permanent position.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's sex was a material cause in her termination, as management failed to address male employees' resentment over her performing heavy lifting duties.

The Board also found that the respondent's passive recruiting practices perpetuated systemic discrimination against women.

The complaint was substantiated, and the respondent was ordered to pay compensation, issue an apology, and implement measures to address the gender imbalance in its workforce.

The complainants, a Black man and a Black woman, alleged that their former employer and its comptroller discriminated against them on the basis of race and colour by terminating their employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the comptroller likely made one racially prejudiced remark during a dispute over overtime, this single incident was not a proximate cause of either dismissal.

The Board concluded that the male complainant was dismissed due to strained personal relations, his resentment, and the employer's fear that he would leave suddenly, while the female complainant was dismissed for destroying company property and insubordination.

The complaints were dismissed.