Katherine Tomaszewski

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of liberty imposed on an accused who was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at a forensic mental health hospital.

The hospital had placed the accused in seclusion and reduced his privileges after he experienced decompensation and psychotic symptoms due to medication changes and the progression of Huntington's disease.

Applying the framework from Campbell (Re), the Board found that the reduction in privileges constituted a significant restriction of liberty.

However, the Board concluded that the restriction was reasonable, warranted, and the least onerous course of action available to manage the accused's risk until he stabilized following further medication adjustments.

The complainant, a Black woman from Jamaica, alleged that the superintendent of her apartment building harassed her and her children because of their race.

The superintendent issued multiple notices of early termination for alleged loitering and directed racial slurs at the complainant.

The Board of Inquiry found that the superintendent's conduct was racially motivated and constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Board also held that the employer, Effort Trust Realty Company, was liable for the superintendent's actions as he was part of the 'directing mind' of the corporation.

The employer was ordered to pay $3,500 in general damages.

The complainant was hired as a medical secretary but was dismissed after two and a half days when the respondent doctor concluded she suffered from grand mal seizures due to her epilepsy.

The respondent believed she would be unable to handle emergency situations.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to determine the complainant's actual medical condition, which involved only simple partial seizures that did not affect her work.

The respondent could not rely on the bona fide occupational qualification defence under section 17 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay $1,080 in special damages and $2,000 in general damages for the wilful infringement of the complainant's rights.

The complainant, who had worked as a snack bar counter person at a golf course in 1989, was offered re-employment for the 1990 season.

Upon disclosing her pregnancy, the offer was revoked because the operations manager wanted someone available for the entire season.

The Board of Inquiry found that treating pregnancy as synonymous with unavailability constituted direct discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Board rejected the argument that availability for the whole season was a bona fide occupational qualification, noting that the complainant only required three weeks off and could have been easily accommodated.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,487.23 for lost wages and $5,000 for mental anguish, plus interest.

The complainant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation discriminated against a halfway house for ex-psychiatric patients by seeking an injunction to enforce a declaration restricting occupancy to single families.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the respondent did not commit direct discrimination by seeking legal clarification in court, the declaration's single-family restriction constituted constructive discrimination against persons with mental disabilities requiring supportive housing.

The Board ordered the offending provisions to be read down to permit group homes for ex-psychiatric patients.