D.J. Baum

The complainant, a probationary employee, was terminated after being absent for three days within her first 29 working days, pursuant to the employer's unwritten attendance policy.

She alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap, claiming her absences were due to an asthmatic reaction to aspirin and the flu.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's allergic reaction was the result of her own reckless negligence in taking unverified medication despite her doctor's warnings.

Furthermore, the Board held that the flu is a commonplace, transitory illness that does not constitute a handicap within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The complaint was deemed trivial and frivolous, and costs were awarded to the respondents on a solicitor-client basis.

Following a remand from the Divisional Court to determine the monetary sum, if any, owed to the complainant for direct discrimination, the Board of Inquiry issued an interim award.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission subsequently acknowledged that, based on the interim award, no monies were owing to the complainant and agreed that convening a hearing would be wasteful.

The respondents concurred, and the complainant did not comment.

Consequently, the Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding the calculation of damages for a police officer who was discriminated against because of her sex when she was removed from her duties due to pregnancy.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued that the complainant should be compensated for all available clerk-typist shifts during her leave.

The respondents brought an application to clarify the scope of damages.

The Board ruled that the original award, which was affirmed by the Divisional Court, limited compensation strictly to available overtime clerk-typist shifts, and did not include regular alternative shift work.

The respondents and interveners brought motions to dismiss the sex discrimination complaints of two female public elementary school teachers.

The complainants alleged that the Ontario Teachers' Federation by-law requiring them to be statutory members of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, and denying them statutory membership in the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation solely because of their sex, violated their right to equal treatment under the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the complainants had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Although the complainants suffered no economic detriment, the mandatory assignment to a gender-segregated organization against their wishes constituted an injury to their dignitary interests, which is sufficient to establish discrimination under the Code.

This is a second interim decision regarding procedures of the Board of Inquiry hearing the complaints of Margaret Tomen and Linda Logan-Smith alleging that a by-law of the Ontario Teachers' Federation discriminates against them because of their sex.

The Board of Inquiry decides on the order of appearance of the parties and interveners, the onus of proof on the complainants and respondents, procedures regarding expert evidence, and hearing dates.

The Board ruled that the Commission is not required to anticipate and rebut a section 13 special program defence as part of its prima facie case.

The complainants alleged that an Ontario Teachers' Federation by-law requiring female elementary teachers to belong to one affiliate and male teachers to belong to another discriminated on the basis of sex.

The respondents and an intervener requested an adjournment of the Board of Inquiry proceedings pending the outcome of a separate court challenge to the by-law under the Charter and corporate law.

The Board of Inquiry denied the request for an adjournment, holding that human rights legislation involves the public interest and imposes a statutory duty to proceed expeditiously, which outweighs the convenience of waiting for a judicial determination that might render the proceedings moot.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging age and marital status discrimination after being denied a security officer position.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Commission's unreasonable delay of over three years in bringing the matter to a hearing prejudiced their ability to defend themselves due to faded memories and lost documentation.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that while the delay was unexplained and inconvenient, the respondents were still able to marshal witnesses and the Commission agreed to provide all relied-upon documentation.

The Board noted that the delay could be considered later in weighing credibility and fashioning a remedy.

The complainant alleged that the respondent credit union discriminated against him on the basis of family status when it refused to consider his application for a loan officer position.

The respondent relied on a long-standing policy prohibiting the employment of relatives of its board or committee members, arguing that the complainant's father, a member of the Supervisory Committee, was an employer.

The Board of Inquiry found that the father was a volunteer officeholder, not an employer or employee, and therefore the nepotism exception in section 23(d) of the Human Rights Code did not apply.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease its discriminatory policy and awarded the complainant damages for lost wages, travel expenses, and general damages.

The complainant, an Italian-Canadian who immigrated in 1956, was employed as a temporary school bus driver.

When a permanent position opened, he was rejected and his temporary employment was terminated because the new Supervisor of Transportation Services deemed his English language proficiency inadequate.

The complainant alleged direct and indirect discrimination based on his Italian origin.

The Board of Inquiry found no direct anti-Italian bias.

While the Board found the English proficiency requirement to be unreasonable and not demonstrably related to the job, it concluded that the requirement adversely impacted functionally illiterate persons generally, rather than a group specifically identified by their Italian origin.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a black woman, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by refusing to rent her a house in the Orchard Park area of London, Ontario because of her race.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' agent intentionally refused to show or rent available properties to the complainant after meeting her in person, despite having previously indicated over the telephone that the properties were available.

The Board held the corporate respondent, its president, and its agent jointly and severally liable for violating the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $200 in special damages and $2,500 in general damages for mental anguish.