Loretta Mikus

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being denied membership in the Italian Society of Port Arthur, an organization of men of Italian descent.

The Society argued it was exempt under section 18 of the Human Rights Code as a fraternal organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of its members.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Society met the three criteria of section 18: it is a fraternal organization, it is primarily engaged in serving the interests of its members, and its membership is restricted to persons similarly identified.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a police constable, requested light duties during the latter stages of her pregnancy due to safety concerns for herself and her fetus.

The Police Services Board denied her request, relying on a policy that prohibited modified work programs, and forced her to take an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board of Inquiry found that the policy constituted both direct and adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex.

The respondents failed to establish that the policy was a bona fide occupational qualification or that they had accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

The complainant was awarded lost wages and general damages for mental anguish.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a complaint of pregnancy discrimination against the Office of the Legislative Assembly to include an allegation of sexual harassment.

The respondents objected, arguing the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to amend the complaint and that doing so would be an abuse of process.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to determine whether a right was infringed, and that the new allegation arose from the same facts.

The Board also dismissed the respondents' motions to remove the Speaker of the House and the Board of Internal Economy as named respondents, and to dismiss the sick leave issues as moot.

Following a preliminary decision that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to hear the human rights complaints due to the Commission's failure to fulfill a condition precedent, the respondent Four Star Variety brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The majority of the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs because the complaints were not 'dismissed' within the strict meaning of the Code.

The motion for costs was denied.

A dissenting member would have found jurisdiction to award costs but denied them on the basis that the respondent suffered no undue hardship, as its legal fees were paid by a third party.

The complainant, an aerobics instructor, was terminated from her employment at the respondent ballet school shortly after informing the directors that she was pregnant.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to her refusal to modify her program and sign a legal waiver absolving the school of liability.

The Board of Inquiry found that the termination was a direct result of her pregnancy, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded special damages for lost wages and general damages for embarrassment and mental anguish.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.

However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.