M.L. Friedland

The complainant, a Canadian citizen of East Indian and Trinidadian origin, alleged that the Sudbury Regional Police Force discriminated against him on the basis of colour, race, ancestry, and age when he was unsuccessful in his application to become a police constable.

The Board of Inquiry found no direct discrimination, noting that the successful candidates were more qualified and that the complainant had a prior conviction and gave inconsistent answers during his interview.

The Board also found no systemic discrimination, concluding that the cognitive ability test used by the police force was a valid predictor of job performance and was not culturally biased against the complainant.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to stay a human rights complaint due to a five-year delay by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in bringing the matter to a hearing.

The Board of Inquiry held that sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter do not apply to human rights proceedings, which are civil rather than criminal in nature.

The Board also declined to stay the proceedings under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding no evidence that the delay made it impossible to ascertain the facts or fulfill its statutory duty.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a black Anglican secretary employed by the Catholic Children's Aid Society, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and creed after the Society denied her requests for an educational leave and a part-time job-sharing arrangement to complete a child care worker diploma.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Society's decisions were reasonable and based on budget restraints, a lack of need for child care workers, and business efficiency.

The Board concluded that neither race, colour, nor creed was a factor in the Society's decisions and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, who has cerebral palsy, alleged he was denied equal treatment with respect to services by the respondent restaurant and its owner.

The complainant was refused a glass of wine because the owner mistakenly believed he was intoxicated, and was subsequently escorted out of the restaurant before finishing his meal.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was discriminated against because of his handicap in both respects.

The respondents were ordered to pay $500 in compensation for damage to the complainant's self-respect.

The complainant, a permanent resident of Canada born in India, was refused employment as a security guard by the respondent because he was not a Canadian citizen or British subject.

The Board of Inquiry found that the relationship between the respondent and its members was one of employment, bringing it within the scope of the Human Rights Code.

The Board held that discrimination based on citizenship constitutes discrimination based on nationality.

Furthermore, the respondent did not qualify for the exemption for exclusively fraternal or social organizations, and citizenship was not a bona fide occupational qualification.

The respondent was ordered to reconsider the complainant's application and pay $1,500 in damages for lost wages and hurt feelings.

Three black complainants alleged they were discriminated against at a public golf course when the starter added a fourth person to their group and a dispute ensued.

The golf pro intervened, called the police, and allegedly used racial slurs while refunding their money and asking them to leave.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainants were genuinely embarrassed and felt discriminated against, the actions of the golf course staff were motivated by enforcing course rules regarding group sizes on busy days, not by race or colour.

The complaints were dismissed.