Ian A. Hunter

The complainants, two single employees, alleged that their employer discriminated against them on the basis of marital status by providing a higher living allowance and company-paid travel home only to married employees relocating to a remote job site.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the policy was discriminatory, it did not contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The differential treatment was justified as a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment, as the employer needed to provide incentives to attract married personnel to the remote location and compensate for the disadvantage of family separation.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant was previously found to have been discriminated against on the basis of race and colour when denied the opportunity to work as a welder on a project in Jamaica.

In this remedy decision, the Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for lost wages, pension contributions, and health and welfare benefits, deducting income earned in mitigation.

The Board found the complainant reasonably mitigated his damages despite refusing a short-term job offer in Alberta.

General damages of $4,500 were awarded for the devastating effect the discrimination had on the complainant.

Total damages of $34,886.33 plus interest were ordered.

The complainant, a black Canadian welder of Jamaican origin, alleged that the respondent company discriminated against him by refusing to refer him for work on a project in Jamaica.

Despite successfully completing the required welding tests and being assured he would be selected, the complainant was bypassed in favour of white welders.

The respondent argued that the selection was based on work quality and that the decision was made outside Ontario.

The Board of Inquiry rejected the respondent's explanations, finding that the decision was influenced by the complainant's race and colour, particularly following the company's negative experience with another black worker.

The Board upheld the complaint and retained jurisdiction to determine the remedy.

Two female cocktail waitresses filed complaints alleging sex discrimination after they were required to wear a new uniform that they considered sexist and revealing.

The complainants refused to wear the uniform and subsequently lost their employment.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the uniform was consistent with commonly accepted social norms, was not unduly revealing, and that the waitresses were permitted to adapt it by wearing leotards and pinning the leg slits.

The Board concluded that the uniform requirement did not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex.

The complainant, a hospital cleaner, alleged that her employment was terminated as a reprisal for having previously filed a human rights complaint against the respondent.

The respondent asserted that she was discharged because of unsatisfactory work performance.

The Board of Inquiry reviewed evidence from the complainant's supervisors and co-workers, finding that her work was slow, incomplete, and generated complaints.

The Board concluded that the termination was due to unsatisfactory work performance and not a reprisal, dismissing the complaint.

The complainants, two female registered nurses, were hired to share a temporary industrial nursing position at a construction site.

After two days, the employer terminated their employment and replaced them with a lesser-qualified male paramedic at a higher cost.

The employer admitted the termination was primarily because he did not want female nurses on the site for alleged safety reasons, though no evidence supported sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

The Board of Inquiry found the employer discriminated against the complainants because of their sex and ordered the employer to pay each complainant $2,090 for lost wages and $1,000 in general damages.

The complainant, a 40-year-old immigrant from India, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and age after being denied a welding technician position with Ontario Hydro.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the race-based allegations due to a lack of evidence.

Regarding age discrimination, the Board found that while the complainant was equally qualified technically as the successful candidate, the respondent's decision was based on the complainant's oral communication difficulties, specifically a tendency to mumble, rather than his age.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Canadian Indian, alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her by imposing tenancy conditions not required of other tenants.

After learning she was Indian, the respondent required two months' rent in advance and two citizen guarantors.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent contravened s. 3(1)(b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code by discriminating with respect to a term or condition of occupancy because of race.

The respondent was ordered to pay $590 in compensation and provide a letter of assurance to the Commission.

The respondent hospital raised two preliminary objections in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination.

First, the hospital argued that the particulars provided by the Commission were inadequate.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the particulars sufficient to define the issues and allow preparation for the hearing.

Second, the hospital moved to set aside two subpoenas duces tecum requiring staff to produce documents.

The Board granted the motion and set aside the subpoenas, holding that while the Code allows for document production during the investigation stage, it does not authorize a right to discovery prior to a hearing.

The complainant, aged 63, applied for a position as a production planner with the respondent company.

Despite being qualified for the position, he was not hired.

The complainant testified that he was told the company wanted a more junior person because he would only be around for two years.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the respondent's explanation that the complainant was unqualified or that the position was filled internally before his age was known.

The Board concluded that age was an operative factor in the decision not to hire, violating the Ontario Human Rights Code, and awarded $1,500 in general damages.

The complainant, a Roman Catholic, was refused employment as a caretaker by the Metropolitan Separate School Board because he did not direct his property taxes to the separate school system.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued this constituted direct and indirect discrimination based on creed, as Protestant applicants were not subject to this requirement.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the refusal was based on the complainant's economic choice regarding tax support, not his religious beliefs, and that the school board was merely operating within the statutory framework of the Education Act.

The complainants, two women, applied for server positions at a restaurant in response to an advertisement.

They were refused employment because the restaurant owner preferred male waiters for evening dinner service, which he considered part of the 'European tradition'.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent discriminated against the complainants on the basis of sex, contravening the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease its discriminatory practices and awarded $75 in general damages to each complainant.

However, the Board declined to award compensation for lost wages because the complainants lacked the essential prerequisite of experience with French cuisine and would not have been hired regardless of their sex.

The complainant, a black woman, alleged that the respondent company discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour by failing to hire her for a packaging position.

The Board of Inquiry found that while a prima facie case of discrimination was established, the respondent provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation.

The respondent demonstrated that many applicants, including white applicants, were treated identically due to the large volume of applications for few positions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Board of Inquiry to hear a human rights complaint regarding discrimination in employment.

The respondent argued that the complainant's prior unsuccessful grievance before an arbitration board under the Labour Relations Act, which arose from the same facts, rendered the matter res judicata.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the remedial procedures under the Human Rights Code are distinct from and not supplanted by the Labour Relations Act, and that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the statutory questions and parties were different.

Two complainants alleged age discrimination in their employment as waitresses at a restaurant.

The first complainant failed to attend the hearing or respond to notices, and her request for an adjournment was denied, resulting in the dismissal of her complaint.

The second complainant alleged she was dismissed because of her age.

The Board found that she was not dismissed but offered alternative employment, and that the employer's actions were motivated by interpersonal conflicts between employees, not age.

Both complaints were dismissed.