Ed Ratushny

Following a decision on remedy, the respondents requested that the interest rate be set at 9%.

The adjudicator initially issued a direction setting the rate at 9%, but subsequently concluded this was an error as he was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to substantively change the original decision, which ordered interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.

The adjudicator also held he could not revoke a $10,000 award even with the consent of the parties, noting that such relief must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedy for a complainant who was discriminated against when he was not hired for a full-time teaching position in 1982.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to adjust the complainant's pension credited service, credit him with sick leave days, and compensate him for OHIP premiums and lost income.

The Tribunal also awarded $35,000 in general damages, noting the significant stress and ongoing reminder of victimization the complainant experienced over a five-year period of underemployment, and included a component recognizing the substantial legal expenses incurred.

Pre-judgment interest was ordered on all monetary awards.

During a remedy hearing following a finding of discrimination, counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew after reaching a settlement with the respondents that the complainant rejected.

The respondents argued that the Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction to continue based on the Divisional Court's ruling in Tilberg.

The Board distinguished Tilberg, noting the Commission had carried the complaint through the liability phase and made a purposive decision to allow the complainant to seek greater compensation.

The Board ruled it retained jurisdiction and ordered the hearing to proceed, with Commission counsel agreeing to attend the remainder of the hearing.

The complainant, a highly qualified teacher of Pakistani origin, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed, sex, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being denied a teaching position in favour of a less qualified white candidate of British origin.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the creed and sex allegations but found that the interviewers failed to give due consideration to the complainant's superior qualifications.

The Board concluded that this failure resulted from an inability to account for cultural differences in communication styles, constituting non-intentional discrimination on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin.

The complainant, a security guard of Philippine extraction, alleged that the respondent hospital discriminated against him on the basis of race by denying him a promotion to Chief of Security, engaged in reprisals, and maintained a pattern of systemic discrimination against non-white employees.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant was not considered for the promotion due to his own arrogant, deceitful, and bizarre conduct, rather than his race.

The Board also found no evidence to support the allegations of reprisals or a pattern of systemic discrimination.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, age, and sex.

The respondents argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the complainant refused to sign an amended complaint form, and that the proceedings should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay, including alleged violations of sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motions, finding that the original complaint could be filed and amended by the Board, that no specific prejudice was established from the delay, and that the Charter provisions did not apply to these human rights proceedings.

The complainant and the Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the Board of Inquiry proceed with hearing the human rights complaint, despite a disputed settlement agreement.

The respondent had commenced a civil action to enforce the settlement and sought to continue the adjournment.

The Board decided to proceed with the hearing, noting that the complainant was unrepresented during settlement negotiations, the Commission opposed the settlement, and the objectives of the Human Rights Code are better served by dealing directly with the merits of the complaint.

The complainant, a male, applied for a travel counsellor position advertised by the respondents.

The respondent manager refused to interview the complainant, stating it was a 'woman's job' and that the required uniforms would not look good on a man.

The complainant arranged for a male and a female friend to call about the position; the male was rejected similarly, while the female was granted an interview despite having identical qualifications.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of sex in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $750 in general damages and the manager was ordered to attend a human rights training session.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission initiated a complaint against a taxi company based on a newspaper investigation alleging the company agreed to customer requests for white-only drivers.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding no contravention of the Human Rights Code because the company did not employ any non-white drivers at the time, meaning no individual's rights were actually infringed.

The Board noted that customer preference is irrelevant to human rights compliance, but declined to award costs to the self-represented respondents due to their failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer through consistent verbal comments of a sexual nature, creating a poisoned work environment and leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Board of Inquiry found that the workplace was characterized by general sexual teasing and joking that was accepted and participated in by the employees.

The Board concluded that the complainant failed to clearly express her disapproval of the conduct, and the respondent's actions did not cross the line into sexual harassment.

The complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex was dismissed.

The respondent brought three preliminary motions in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of nationality in a university tenure review process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion for further particulars, finding the allegations sufficient.

The Board struck down one overly broad paragraph of a subpoena duces tecum but upheld the remainder.

Finally, the Board rejected the respondent's claim that letters of reference were protected by confidentiality privilege, holding that the public interest in resolving human rights complaints outweighs the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the peer evaluation process.