Frederick H. Zemans

Beryl Wall, a computer operator at the University of Waterloo, alleged that her supervisor, Gary Embro, sexually harassed her through unwanted touching and kissing.

The University investigated and implemented an agreement separating the two, but Wall ultimately resigned, claiming the response was inadequate.

The Board of Inquiry found that Embro's conduct constituted sexual harassment.

Applying the organic theory of corporate responsibility, the Board held the University jointly and severally liable because Embro, as a supervisor, formed part of the University's directing mind.

However, the Board found the University's response to the complaint was reasonable and therefore dismissed Wall's claim for lost wages.

Wall was awarded $3,500 for mental anguish and infringement of rights, plus interest.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap after he was terminated for falsifying a pre-employment medical questionnaire.

He had failed to disclose his asthma and allergies when hired.

When he later requested accommodation to avoid a polluted work area, the employer discovered the falsification and terminated him pursuant to its policy.

The Board of Inquiry found that the termination was based solely on the falsification of the medical form, not on the complainant's disability, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a young woman placed at the respondent's greenhouse through a youth employment program, alleged sexual harassment and reprisal by her employer.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer engaged in a course of vexatious comment and conduct, including persistent sexual propositions and unwanted touching, which he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome.

The Board also found that the employer's decision to send the complainant home early on her last day constituted a reprisal for her rejection of his sexual advances.

The respondents were ordered to pay $240 in lost wages and $2,750 in general damages for mental anguish.

The complainant, an aesthetician, alleged she was dismissed from her employment at a hair salon because of her pregnancy.

The respondents claimed she was dismissed due to poor work performance and low revenue generation.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the respondents had legitimate concerns about her performance, her pregnancy was a factor that influenced the decision to terminate her employment.

The Board ruled that discrimination because of pregnancy constitutes discrimination because of sex under the pre-amendment Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $726 for lost wages, limited to a reasonable notice period, and $375 in general damages for emotional distress.

The respondent Ministry of Education brought an application for particulars regarding a human rights complaint initiated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondent sought the names of the individuals who requested the Commission to initiate the complaint.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the application, finding that the identity of the persons who requested the complaint is not a material fact necessary for the respondent to prepare for the hearing, as the Commission itself is the complainant and the respondent had been provided with the substantial facts of the allegations.

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed and subsequently dismissed by the president of the respondent taxicab association.

The Board of Inquiry found that the president made unwelcome sexual advances, including forcibly kissing the complainant, creating an intimidating and hostile work environment.

The Board rejected the respondents' claim that the complainant was dismissed for incompetence, finding instead that sex discrimination was a proximate cause of her termination.

The corporate respondent was held liable as the president was its directing mind.

The complainant was awarded $2,750 for lost wages and $250 in general damages.

The complainant, a 20-year-old single male, alleged that Zurich Insurance Company discriminated against him on the basis of age, sex, and marital status by charging him a higher automobile insurance premium than it charged young females, young married males, or single males over 25.

Zurich admitted a prima facie case of discrimination but argued the rates were justified under section 21 of the Human Rights Code as being based on reasonable and bona fide grounds.

The Board of Inquiry applied the Etobicoke test for a bona fide occupational qualification, adapting it to the insurance context.

The Board found that Zurich failed to establish a direct causal relationship between the discriminatory factors and higher risk, noting that age, sex, and marital status were merely proxies for other factors like mileage and social habits.

Furthermore, Zurich failed to demonstrate that non-discriminatory rate classifications were impractical or that the essence of its business would be undermined without them.

The Board concluded that the rate classifications contravened the Code and ordered the hearing to resume to determine the appropriate remedy.

The complainant, an employee of East Indian origin, alleged that he was laid off by the respondent employer because of his race and ancestry, in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The employer, which had a predominantly Eastern European workforce, laid off the complainant while retaining less senior Eastern European employees.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer was in severe financial difficulty and laid off higher-paid senior employees to reduce labour costs.

As the workplace was not unionized, the employer was not obligated to respect seniority.

The Board concluded that racial discrimination was not a proximate cause of the layoff and dismissed the complaint.

The respondent insurance company brought preliminary objections to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in automobile insurance rates.

The complainant, a father, alleged he was charged higher premiums to insure his 16-year-old son than he would have been for a female child, contrary to the Human Rights Code, 1981.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the insurance contract predated the Code's proclamation, and that the father lacked standing because the alleged discrimination was based on his son's sex and age, not his own.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the objections, finding that the Code applies prospectively to ongoing discriminatory acts and that its remedial nature rebuts any presumption against retrospectivity.

The Board also held that the father had standing to complain of discrimination based on his 'family status' as the parent of a male child.

The complainant, a bartender, alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex (pregnancy) when her employment was terminated.

The Board of Inquiry found that while discrimination because of pregnancy constitutes discrimination because of sex, the complainant's termination was strictly a cost-cutting measure by the employer.

The Board accepted evidence that the employer offered the complainant alternative employment which she refused.

The complaint was dismissed.

Seven black employees filed complaints alleging they were laid off by Ontario Hydro because of their race.

The Board of Inquiry found that the ranking system used to determine lay-offs was informal and subjective, allowing for racial prejudice to influence the decisions.

The Board concluded that foreman Jack Watson discriminated against four of the complainants (Mears, Walker, Trotman, and Wills) and that Ontario Hydro was responsible due to its laissez-faire management practices.

The complaints of the other three employees were dismissed.

The four successful complainants were awarded compensation for lost wages, general damages for humiliation, and interest.

The complainant, a waitress, alleged that she was sexually harassed by the assistant manager of the restaurant where she worked, and that she was dismissed for refusing his advances.

The Board of Inquiry found that the assistant manager's conduct, which included asking her out to dinner and some limited physical contact, did not amount to sexual harassment as it was not made a condition of employment.

Furthermore, the Board found that the complainant's dismissal was decided by the general manager and the owner based on her work performance, demeanour, and appearance, and was not influenced by the assistant manager's personal interest in her.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, the respondent, during her brief period of employment.

The Board of Inquiry admitted similar fact evidence from another former employee who testified to similar unwanted advances.

The Board found that the respondent physically abused the complainant through sexual harassment, which amounted to constructive dismissal and a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $375 for lost wages and $750 in general damages, write a letter of apology, and cease and desist from future sexual harassment.

The complainant, a black man of East Indian origin, alleged he was denied the position of director at a hospital's new detoxification centre because of his race.

During his interview, the hospital's representative asked questions regarding his ability to handle racial situations and racial slurs, which were not asked of white candidates.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's qualifications were comparable to the successful white candidate and that the hospital's representative showed an intent to discriminate by offering the position to the white candidate without checking references.

The Board concluded that race was a factor in the decision not to hire the complainant and awarded him compensation for lost wages and general damages for injury to dignity.

The complainants alleged racial discrimination and reprisal in their employment and subsequent termination.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a prior arbitration award dismissing their grievances rendered the matter res judicata.

The Board of Inquiry rejected the res judicata argument, finding that the parties and subject matter under the Human Rights Code differ from those in a labour arbitration.

On the merits, the Board found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination or reprisal, concluding that the conflicts arose from interpersonal issues and insubordination rather than race.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a university student of Chinese ancestry, alleged that the respondent denied him rental accommodation because of his race.

The respondent claimed she was out of town and had no vacancies at the time.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondent's evidence to be evasive and untruthful, accepting the complainant's evidence that he was told over the phone that the respondent would not rent to Chinese people.

The Board concluded the respondent contravened s. 3(1)(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code and ordered her to pay $150 in general damages, write a letter of apology, and provide assurances of future compliance.

The complainant alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against her on the basis of race by refusing to allow her to sublet her rented trailer to a couple because of the prospective sub-tenant's native ancestry.

The Board of Inquiry found that the landlords had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for refusing the sublet, including the prospective sub-tenants being unmarried, having a child (which violated the landlords' rules due to lack of laundry facilities), and the abusive behaviour of one of the prospective sub-tenants.

The Board concluded that the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that discrimination occurred, and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a black African woman, was dismissed from her employment as a cashier after a cash shortage and the subsequent discovery of money under her cash register.

She alleged that her dismissal was based on her race, colour, and place of origin, claiming her manager made a racist remark during her termination.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer dismissed her due to suspicions of theft and an inability to explain the cash discrepancy, not because of her race or colour.

The complaint of discrimination was dismissed.