Heather M. MacNaughton

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding the implementation of a previous order requiring the Barrie YMCA to construct a Women's Plus facility comparable to the Men's Plus facility.

The parties agreed to a revised construction schedule and renovations to the Men's Plus facility to ensure comparability.

The Board ordered that all its decisions be posted on the YMCA's membership bulletin board until construction is completed.

However, the Board declined to order an immediate enforcement mechanism that would convert the Men's Plus facility to a Women's Plus facility in the event of further delays, noting it was not part of the original agreement, though it left open the possibility of such an order if future delays are attributable to the YMCA.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding the implementation of a previous order requiring the Barrie YMCA to construct a Women's Plus facility comparable to its Men's Plus facility.

The parties agreed to a revised construction schedule and renovations to the Men's Plus facility.

The Commission and complainants sought orders requiring the posting of the Board's decisions and an enforcement mechanism converting the Men's Plus facility if construction was delayed.

The Board ordered the posting of its decisions but declined to order the enforcement mechanism at this time, noting it was not part of the original agreement and could be punitive, though it left open the possibility of reconsidering if future delays occurred.

The complainants and the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleged that the YMCA of Barrie failed to comply with a previous Board of Inquiry order regarding the posting of a decision and the provision of comparable facilities for women.

The adjudicator found that the late posting of the decision was an unintentional error and required no further order.

Regarding the comparability of the proposed Women's Plus facility to the Men's Plus facility, the adjudicator found that conflicting measurements and plans necessitated reconvening the hearing to address the outstanding issues.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address two implementation issues arising from a previous decision finding that the Barrie YMCA's facilities discriminated against women.

The complainants and the Commission alleged that the YMCA failed to post the decision as ordered and failed to provide architect's plans for a comparable Women's Plus facility.

The adjudicator found no breach regarding the posting of the decision, noting the delay was an error and the YMCA offered to extend the posting period.

Regarding the comparability of the facilities, the adjudicator directed that the hearing reconvene to address conflicting evidence on the net area of the proposed spaces.

The Applicants, a group of Review Officers, challenged their job class placement under the employer's pay equity plan.

During a preliminary motion brought by the Respondent, evidence revealed that the Review Officers were treated as being in the ALR 19 job class for most of the pay equity process, despite being posted in the ALR 20 job class.

The Tribunal found the preliminary motion ill-founded based on this new evidence and ordered both parties to file new pleadings to properly address the issues revealed.

The complainants alleged that the Barrie YMCA discriminated against them on the basis of sex by offering a premium 'Membership Plus' category and superior change room facilities exclusively to men.

During the hearing, the respondent conceded that its facilities infringed section 1 of the Human Rights Code and waived its right to assert any defence.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the respondent to construct a comparable women's premium change facility, pay general damages of $10,000 to one complainant and $8,000 to the other, and post the decision for its membership.

Two female members of the Barrie YMCA filed human rights complaints alleging sex discrimination because the facility offered a premium 'Membership Plus' category exclusively to men.

This premium membership provided access to a separate change facility with superior amenities, including a whirlpool, steam room, and towel service, with no comparable facility available to women.

During the hearing, the parties reached an agreed statement of facts and the respondent conceded that the unequal facilities infringed section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the YMCA to construct a comparable premium facility for women, pay general damages of $10,000 and $8,000 to the respective complainants, and post the decision within the facility.

The Board of Inquiry previously found that the respondents discriminated against the complainants on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

In this decision on remedy, the respondents argued that an order compelling them to provide such services would violate the individual respondent's freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the Board held that while the order would infringe the respondent's freedom of religion, the limit was demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter to achieve the pressing and substantial objective of eradicating discrimination in the provision of public services.

The Board ordered the respondents to provide the printing services and to pay $5,000 in damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The complainants, Ray Brillinger and the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, alleged discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sexual orientation after the respondents, Scott Brockie and Imaging Excellence Inc., refused to provide printing services for the Archives.

The respondent Brockie refused the services due to his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Archives is a 'person' under the Human Rights Code and that the respondents directly discriminated against the Archives and indirectly discriminated against Brillinger on the basis of sexual orientation and association.

The corporate respondent was held liable for the actions of its president.

The complainant, a wheelchair user, alleged that the respondents operated inaccessible motion picture theatres, violating his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents acknowledged the breach of the complainant's rights, noting that the theatre in question had been closed.

The Board of Inquiry issued a consent order declaring the infringement, prohibiting the future operation or subletting of the theatre, and awarding the complainant $6,000 in general damages.

The respondents sought an adjournment or stay of the Board of Inquiry proceedings pending their application for judicial review of an interim decision that recognized the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives as a party complainant.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the adjudicator found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the respondents would not suffer irreparable harm from proceeding.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing to avoid fragmentation and delay, particularly given the full right of appeal available under the Human Rights Code.

The motion for a stay was denied.

Following the dismissal of human rights complaints against him, the respondent sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to award costs where the complaint against one of multiple respondents was dismissed in its entirety.

However, the Board declined to award costs, finding that the complaint was not made in bad faith, was not trivial or vexatious, and did not cause the respondent undue hardship.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for standing to participate as a party in applications filed by two colleges challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to issue orders regarding their pay equity plans in the absence of a complaint.

The colleges opposed the motion.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties under s. 32(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, which requires a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case.

Finding that the PEO had a substantial interest in the broader policy outcome and the impact of the jurisdictional interpretation on its authority and practice, the Tribunal granted the PEO party status for the purpose of making submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The complainant alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her during a visit to her apartment and subsequently engaged in acts of reprisal when she rejected his advances.

She resigned due to stress and later sought re-employment, which the employer refused.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the sexual harassment and supervisor reprisal complaints, finding the supervisor's version of events more credible.

However, the Board found that the employer and its human resources director engaged in reprisal by refusing to re-hire the complainant without properly investigating her sexual harassment complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicants did not constitute a female job class, and issued a summons to the Pay Equity Commissioner for various personnel records.

The applicants also issued a summons to a Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office objected, arguing the summonses breached the qualified privilege under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances existed to grant consent for the summonses because the applicants themselves were Review Officers, but limited the scope of documentary production to protect personal identifying information and quashed the applicants' summons for irrelevant documents.

The employees, who were unrepresented by a bargaining agent, sought an interim order requiring the employer school board to pay their regular wages while they attended a lengthy pay equity hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no inherent jurisdiction or explicit statutory authority under the Pay Equity Act to order intervenor funding or interim costs in advance of a decision on the merits.

The respondent employer brought a motion to defer setting hearing dates until the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal decided pending appeals in other cases raising similar issues regarding the exclusion of women on maternity leave from short-term disability benefits.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that its public interest mandate under the Human Rights Code required it to expeditiously decide the issues before it, and that deferring the hearing could result in years of delay.

The Commission and the complainant sought to amend a human rights complaint to add an allegation of reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents objected, arguing that the four-year delay between the alleged acts of reprisal and the notice of intention to amend caused prejudice, as they had not preserved evidence or interviewed witnesses.

The Adjudicator granted the amendment, finding no evidentiary basis to support the claim of prejudice and noting that the respondents had been aware of the related harassment allegations from the outset.

The complainant, an observant Jewish employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed because she was required to use vacation time, lieu time, or unpaid leave to observe Jewish holy days.

The employer rejected her proposal to make up the time by working overtime, arguing that not all employees had overtime available.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the employer's holiday schedule was secular and not directly discriminatory, it had an adverse effect on the complainant.

The Board held that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate, as it did not establish that the proposed accommodation would cause undue hardship.

However, no damages were awarded because the complainant suffered no monetary loss and bad faith was not established.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the human rights complaint after reaching a settlement with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The complainant was not a party to the settlement.

The municipality argued that the Commission's carriage of the complaint meant the settlement concluded the proceedings.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Human Rights Code grants independent party status to the complainant, which includes the right to call evidence and make arguments.

Forcing a complainant to accept a settlement negotiated by the Commission would be inconsistent with the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights legislation.