Maryka Omatsu

The complainant, a Mohawk Indian, was denied the opportunity to register his fish in the respondent's fishing derby because he did not possess a provincial fishing licence, which he was not legally required to have.

The complainant died before the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's neutral rule requiring a fishing licence had an adverse effect on the complainant based on his ancestry, constituting indirect discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded special and general damages to the complainant's estate.

The complainant, a casual cleaner, alleged she was denied a promotion to a part-time or full-time day cleaner position because of her sex.

The Board of Inquiry found that the site manager refused to promote her because he believed a woman should not hold the position, and that the workplace was de facto segregated by gender.

The Board held the site manager personally liable for sex discrimination and the corporate employer vicariously liable.

The respondents were ordered to pay $9,000 in special damages for lost wages and $1,000 in general damages.

The complainant, a 17-year-old, answered an advertisement for a nude lingerie model placed by the respondent photographer.

During the photo session, the respondent touched the complainant's breasts and vagina.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment.

The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding delay, abuse of process, and Charter violations, which the Board dismissed, noting that human rights proceedings are remedial and not subject to sections 7 and 11 of the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found that the respondent was in a position to confer a benefit and made sexual advances that he ought reasonably to have known were unwelcome, given the complainant's age, the power dynamic, and previous similar complaints against him.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay $1,500 in general damages and directed that all photographs and negatives be destroyed.

The complainant, a wheelchair user, alleged that her condominium corporation discriminated against her by refusing her access to the swimming pool unless she showered in the pool area.

The Board of Inquiry found that the shower area was not accessible to the complainant without a special bench, which was not provided until later.

The Board held that the condominium corporation failed to reasonably accommodate the complainant, as allowing her to shower in her own unit would not have caused undue hardship.

However, the Board declined to award damages due to the complainant's abusive behaviour and the lack of actual loss, ordering only that wheelchair users be permitted to shower in their units.