Elizabeth Beckett

The complainant alleged that the Mayor of Hamilton discriminated against him based on sexual orientation by refusing to issue a proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Pride Week.

The Board of Inquiry found that a mayoral proclamation is a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, as it is generally perceived as a benefit to the groups seeking it.

The Board held that the Mayor's refusal, though purportedly motivated by a desire to protect the gay and lesbian community from homophobic backlash, was paternalistic and constituted discrimination.

The Board further found that the City of Hamilton was neither directly nor vicariously liable for the Mayor's actions, as issuing proclamations falls outside his statutory duties as Chief Executive Officer.

The Mayor was ordered to pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity and to issue the proclamation if requested in 1995.

The complainant, an Orthodox Jew, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed when her employer required her to seek weekly approval to leave work early on Fridays during the winter to observe the Sabbath.

The employer had previously allowed her to use accumulated overtime to leave early.

When a new supervisor required formal approval and scheduled a meeting to discuss her needs, the complainant became upset and failed to adequately communicate the specific time requirements for her religious observances, such as candle lighting.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer took reasonable steps to accommodate and communicate, but the complainant failed in her duty to facilitate the accommodation by not explaining her needs.

The respondents, the Corporation of the City of Hamilton and Mayor Robert Morrow, brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the refusal to proclaim Gay and Lesbian Pride Week.

The City argued the Commission failed to attempt settlement with it and that it was not a proper party.

The Mayor argued the complaint was barred by the six-month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all motions, finding that the Commission attempted settlement in good faith, that it was premature to dismiss the City as a party without a hearing, and that the complaint was filed within the limitation period.

The complainant, who uses a motorized wheelchair, alleged discrimination when she was unable to find a designated handicapped parking space at the respondent's shopping plaza and was rudely told to leave a fire route by an employee.

The Board of Inquiry found that the failure to provide handicapped parking constituted adverse effect discrimination in the provision of services.

The Board rejected the respondent's arguments that the lack of a municipal by-law requiring such parking excused them from the duty to accommodate.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a designated handicapped parking space and to pay the complainant $1,000 in damages.

The complainant, a woman trained as an industrial mechanic, applied for a millwright apprentice position with the respondent.

She was told the job was unsuitable for a woman due to lack of facilities and potential discontent among male workers' wives.

The Board of Inquiry found that while no position was actually available at the time, the respondent discriminated against the complainant in the hiring process based on stereotypical attitudes about women in non-traditional occupations.

The Board awarded $3,000 in damages for humiliation and ordered the respondent to implement non-discriminatory hiring practices.

Three employees filed human rights complaints alleging sexual harassment by the new general manager of a hotel.

The Board of Inquiry banned the publication of the complainants' names to protect their privacy.

The Board dismissed the complaints of two employees, finding that while the manager's sexual stories and comments were inappropriate, they did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment.

However, the Board upheld the complaint of the third employee, finding that the manager's persistent and untrue statements about her sexual activities created a poisoned work environment.

The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable as the manager was a directing mind.

The successful complainant was awarded $4,500 for lost wages and $2,000 in general damages.

The respondent brought preliminary motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Board of Inquiry to hear a human rights complaint regarding the provision of handicapped parking spaces.

The respondent argued that the matter should be dealt with under the Municipal Act or Planning Act, and that the delay in bringing the complaint forward violated s. 7 of the Charter and constituted an abuse of process.

The Board dismissed the motions, finding that the Human Rights Code takes precedence over municipal by-laws, that s. 7 of the Charter does not apply to these proceedings, and that the delay did not prejudice the respondent's ability to have a fair hearing.