Morley R. Gorsky

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap, the respondents sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the complaint was vexatious and that the Commission acted irresponsibly in pursuing it given the clear superiority of the successful candidate's qualifications.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the application for costs, finding that while the Commission's investigation may have had technical shortcomings, the complaint was pursued in good faith and was not vexatious.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested directions regarding a prior interim decision that imposed a publicity ban on a sexual harassment hearing until the Board's decision is released.

The Commission sought approval to issue a notice to the media containing the time, place, and a summary of the allegations.

The respondents objected to disclosing the nature of the complaint, arguing it would prejudice the public.

The Board of Inquiry approved the Commission's draft notice, finding it essential for the public to know what the inquiry is about to make an informed decision to attend, provided the notice prominently displays the limitations imposed by the publicity ban.

In an interim decision following a finding of age discrimination, the respondents requested that the complainant undergo a medical examination to determine if he would have been on disability leave during the compensation period.

The Commission opposed the request, arguing it was an attempt to relitigate the issue of mitigation.

The Board of Inquiry granted the respondents' request, holding that the medical evidence was relevant to determining the complainant's actual wage loss and did not reopen the already-decided issue of mitigation.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Guelph to Kitchener, to hold the hearing in camera, and for a publication ban.

The respondent child protection agency argued that negative publicity would harm its ability to serve the community and raise funds.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the requests for a change of venue and an in camera hearing, finding no sufficient basis to depart from the principle of open hearings and the educational purposes of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Board granted a publication ban preventing the news media from reporting on the proceedings until the release of the Board's final decision.

The complainant, a bartender, alleged that she was sexually harassed by the owner of the restaurant where she worked.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent engaged in frequent, unwelcome physical and verbal sexual advances, violating the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered a publication ban on the complainant's name and awarded $1,000 in general damages for humiliation, along with $346.90 for lost wages, noting that the complainant failed to fully mitigate her damages by restricting her job search.

The complainant, a Filipino veterinarian, alleged that he was denied a promotion to a management position at the Humane Society because of his race and small physical stature.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the manager regularly used racial slurs and tolerated a prejudiced work environment, the decision not to promote the complainant was based on his lack of 'on the road' law enforcement experience compared to the successful candidate.

The complaint was dismissed, but the Board recommended workplace education on the Human Rights Code.

The respondent employer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding two human rights complaints filed by the complainant.

The respondent and the Ontario Human Rights Commission understood the $7,500 offer to settle both complaints.

However, the complainant reasonably believed the offer only applied to her first complaint, as the second complaint was not discussed during settlement meetings with Commission counsel.

The Board of Inquiry found that because the complainant did not agree to settle the second complaint, and Commission counsel lacked authority to settle both, the settlement was not binding.

The respondent's motion was dismissed.