Deborah J. Leighton

The complainant, Lynne Barclay, alleged that the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 12, and two of its officers discriminated against her because of her association with persons of native ancestry and persons of colour.

After confronting the officers about racist comments made in the Legion clubroom, the complainant's clubroom privileges were suspended and she was eventually expelled.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Legion provides a service to the public and that the complainant's rights were violated due to her association with protected groups.

The Board also found that the expulsion was a reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Legion was ordered to reinstate the complainant and pay general damages, and the individual respondents were also ordered to pay damages.

The complainant, who was born with a shorter and weaker left arm and a left hand with four digits, was hired as a general labourer and assigned to work as a coil tester.

After working for about an hour, the employer sent him home due to safety concerns and subsequently terminated his employment, assuming he could not safely perform the job.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of handicap.

The employer failed to establish a defence under section 17 of the Human Rights Code because it took no steps to assess the complainant's actual capabilities or to determine if he could be accommodated without undue hardship.

Expert evidence demonstrated that the complainant was fully capable of performing the essential duties of the job.

The Board awarded the complainant $957.60 for lost wages, $4,000 in general damages for humiliation, interest, and ordered the employer to provide human rights training for its management.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment.

Mr. Benmergui argued the Commission breached procedural fairness by failing to notify him of the complainants' requests for reconsideration of the decision not to appoint a board of inquiry.

The Board of Inquiry agreed, finding the breach could not be cured by a full hearing and permanently stayed the complaints against him as an abuse of process.

The respondent Hospital argued the complaints should be dismissed due to the Commission's failure to give reasons for its reconsideration decision, unreasonable delay, and apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the Hospital's motion, finding the failure to give reasons could be cured by further disclosure, there was no evidence of actual prejudice from the delay, and no evidence of bias.

The complainant, who was absent from work for a year and a half due to a workplace injury, lost six months of seniority pursuant to a provision in the collective agreement that reduced seniority for absences exceeding one year.

She subsequently lost a job competition because of this reduced seniority.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the provision was neutral on its face, it had a discriminatory impact on the complainant because of her handicap.

The Board held that both the employer and the union breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.