Mary-Woo Sims

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.

The applicant, a Business Systems Analyst, alleged that her employer violated section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act by penalizing her for her pay equity activities.

She claimed she suffered harassment, denial of training, poor performance appraisals, and ultimately termination as a reprisal.

The employer argued that the applicant's position was made redundant as part of a legitimate, organization-wide downsizing and technological restructuring.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer successfully discharged its onus to prove that the termination and other actions were unrelated to the applicant's pay equity activities and were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus.

The applicant's application was dismissed, and the employer's application to set aside the Review Officer's order was allowed.

The union and the employer filed applications regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning their pay equity plan.

The parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement in 1990 which they intended to serve as a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found that the agreement failed to comply with the Pay Equity Act in several fundamental ways, including failing to consider benefits in job rates, failing to directly compare female to male job classes, and using pay equity adjustments for both male and female job classes to achieve internal equity.

The Tribunal concluded that no valid pay equity plan existed and ordered the parties to negotiate a new plan in compliance with the Act.

The adjudicator addressed three preliminary issues in a human rights complaint.

The complaint was amended on consent to remove allegations of discrimination based on family status.

The adjudicator denied the respondents' request to record the proceedings and provide transcripts, finding no statutory obligation to do so absent a request for accommodation.

Finally, the adjudicator deferred the respondents' request for disclosure of the complainant's husband's business records, which were sought to assess mitigation efforts.

The adjudicator ordered the hearing bifurcated, with the issue of discrimination to be determined before addressing damages and mitigation.

The applicants challenged the identification of the Chaplain job class as the male comparator for the Social Work and Psychometrist job classes in the employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal determined as a preliminary matter whether current and former incumbents of other female job classes that also use the Chaplain as their male comparator were entitled to notice of the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide notice to all such current and former employees, as a finding that the Chaplain is not an appropriate comparator could significantly affect their pay equity entitlements.

The complainant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of marital status after she was transferred and subjected to a poisoned work environment due to her relationship with another employee.

The Board of Inquiry found that at the time of the transfer, the complainant was only dating the employee, which does not fall within the definition of marital status under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Board held that the Code's protection against discrimination based on marital status does not extend to the identity of a particular spouse, as it protects against group characteristics rather than individual identity.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under s. 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a $50,000 budget shortfall.

The Board argued that previous budget cuts left no room for further reductions, citing increased costs for vehicle replacement and insurance premiums.

The Regional Municipality opposed the application, pointing to a high incidence of tax arrears and the need to be sensitive to property taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Board could operate within the budget approved by the Municipality, and suggested the Board review its vehicle replacement allocation.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off.

The charges arose from a four-day delay in reporting a superior officer's misconduct regarding a lowered breathalyzer reading, and a failure to ensure seized liquor was properly recorded.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the four-day delay in reporting the superior's actions was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

However, the Commission upheld the finding of neglect of duty regarding the failure to properly record the seized liquor, as the appellant's words led subordinate officers to dispose of it.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 12 hours time off.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, who continuously proposed marriage, touched her inappropriately, and changed her hours of work after she rejected his advances.

After she filed a human rights complaint, the employer sent her a threatening card with play money, which she perceived as a threat to her life.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct constituted sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant special damages for lost wages and a missed bonus, general damages for mental anguish, and ordered the employer to attend human rights training.