Errol P. Mendes

The complainant, a black cashier, alleged she was racially harassed and subsequently terminated because of her race.

The Board of Inquiry found that the store manager engaged in unconscious discriminatory behaviour, including mimicking accents and making racially insensitive jokes, which created a poisoned work environment.

However, the Board concluded that the complainant's termination was due to insubordination, not race.

The complaint regarding termination was dismissed, but the complaint of racial harassment was upheld.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $3,000 in general damages and institute a training program for its managers.

Two 15-year-old waitresses filed human rights complaints alleging sexual harassment by their employer, the owner of a truck stop.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer subjected the complainants to repeated sexual touching, comments, and solicitations, and on one occasion played a pornographic movie in their presence.

This conduct created a poisoned work environment and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The Board awarded special damages for lost wages and general damages for mental anguish, noting the vulnerability of the young complainants.

The employer was also ordered to report future hirings of female employees to the Commission.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainants based on marital status, the Board of Inquiry assessed remedies.

The Board awarded special damages for lost wages, finding both complainants reasonably mitigated their damages, and declined to deduct social assistance benefits from the awards.

General damages of $5,000 were awarded to each complainant for loss of dignity and self-respect.

The Board declined to order reinstatement, interest, or costs, considering the respondent's status as a non-profit charitable organization.

The complainants, Kelly Parks and Holly MacIntyre, alleged that they were discriminated against on the basis of marital status when their employment at Christian Horizons group homes was terminated because they were living in common-law relationships.

The Board of Inquiry found that Christian Horizons directly discriminated against the complainants.

While Christian Horizons qualified as a religious organization serving the interests of persons identified by creed, it failed to establish that its lifestyle requirement was a bona fide occupational qualification under s. 23(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The requirement was not applied consistently, and the hiring procedures did not clearly indicate that only those whose lifestyles were compatible with Evangelical Christian doctrinal principles were qualified for employment.

The complaints against the individual respondents were dismissed.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that the respondent refused to sell him a cottage because of his race.

The respondent had initially been friendly to the complainant's white wife, but became reserved when the complainant arrived and falsely claimed his brother was interested in buying the property.

The respondent later admitted to the complainant's mother-in-law that he would not sell to a Black person.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race, violating his right to contract on equal terms under section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,000 in general damages for the hurt and humiliation caused.