M.R. Gorsky

The complainant, a 57-year-old foreman with 32 years of service, alleged he was discriminated against on the basis of age when his employment was terminated during a staff reduction.

The employer claimed the termination was due to inadequate job performance and an inability to adapt to changes.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the termination and that age was a motivating factor in the decision.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainant for lost wages and benefits, pay $1,500 for injury to dignity, and conduct yearly retirement planning seminars.

The complainant alleged she was refused a full-time position as a Porter at the respondent hospital because of her sex, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The hospital maintained separate job classifications for Porters (historically male) and Maids (historically female).

The Board of Inquiry found that while a prima facie case of discrimination was established, the hospital successfully rebutted it by showing that the hiring decision was based on the neutral criterion of the applicants' initial dates of hire as relief workers.

The two male applicants hired had earlier start dates than the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against and ultimately discharged by his employer in retaliation for assisting a co-worker with a human rights complaint, and because he was perceived to be a communist.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant was discharged for just cause due to his poor attendance and work record, a management representative violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to intervene when the complainant was socially ostracized by fellow employees for his involvement in the co-worker's complaint.

The allegations of discrimination based on creed and monetary discrimination were dismissed.

The employer was ordered to pay $200 in damages for emotional suffering and to post Human Rights Codes in the workplace.

The complainant alleged refusal to employ and promote because of nationality.

In this interim decision, the Board of Inquiry considered motions to set aside subpoenas duces tecum served on behalf of the Commission and the respondent.

The Board found that the subpoenas were issued for the purpose of obtaining discovery of documents rather than producing them in evidence at the hearing.

As there is no common-law right to discovery and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act only authorizes subpoenas for producing documents in evidence, the Board ordered the subpoenas set aside.

The complainant, a black employee, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour when he was discharged for failing to protect store merchandise during a theft committed by an acquaintance.

The complainant argued that white employees involved in similar incidents received lesser discipline or were discharged only when actual theft or involvement was proven.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's security surveillance and disciplinary practices, while perhaps overzealous, were applied uniformly to all employees regardless of race.

The Board concluded there was no disparate treatment and therefore no breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondent company in a human rights complaint brought a motion to adjourn the hearing, arguing the Commission failed to provide reasonable information of the allegations as required by s. 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The company sought discovery of documents and the evidence the Commission intended to rely upon.

The Board of Inquiry held it had jurisdiction to order compliance with s. 8.

However, it ruled that s. 8 only requires the disclosure of material facts, including times, places, and names of individuals involved in the allegations, but does not grant a right to discovery of documents or the evidence by which the case will be proved.