Peter A. Cumming

The complainant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being terminated from an unfunded residency program in ophthalmology at the University of Toronto.

The Board of Inquiry found that the admissions process for funded positions was competitive and non-discriminatory.

The complainant was offered an unfunded position as an act of compassion but ultimately failed his examinations on multiple occasions.

The Board concluded that the complainant was evaluated fairly and dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of unlawful discrimination.

The complainant, a tenant in the respondent's apartment building, requested a transfer to a two-bedroom apartment after becoming pregnant.

The respondent landlord denied the request, relying on a 'no-transfer' policy he had implemented after a previous altercation with the complainant.

The Board of Inquiry found no direct discrimination, as the refusal was motivated by personal animosity rather than the complainant's family status.

However, the Board found that the no-transfer policy constituted constructive discrimination under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code, as it had a disproportionate adverse impact on families with children who require more space.

The respondent failed to show that accommodating internal transfers would cause undue hardship.

The Board awarded the complainant $1,000 in general damages and ordered the respondent to cease the discriminatory policy.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.

The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.

The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on handicap (wrist injury).

The respondents argued the complaint should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay and because the pre-1988 Human Rights Code did not explicitly require reasonable accommodation.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed both motions, finding that a fair hearing was still possible despite the delay, and that a duty to accommodate was inherent in the pre-amendment Code's prohibition against discrimination.

The complainant, who is HIV positive, alleged discrimination based on a deemed termination clause in the collective agreement.

Preliminary motions were brought to determine the appropriate parties to the complaint.

The Board of Inquiry added the successor union (CEP) as a respondent because it assumed the obligations of the predecessor union.

The Board declined to add the current union (CBRT) as it was not a party to the impugned agreement.

The Board also refused to dismiss the complaint against individual union officers, finding that individuals who participate in negotiating a discriminatory clause may be personally liable under the Human Rights Code.

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.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.

Two employees filed human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination and harassment.

One complainant was subjected to racial slurs and physical assaults by a co-worker.

The Board found the co-worker personally liable for racial harassment but dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding the employer did not condone the conduct and had disciplined the co-worker.

The second complainant, a union steward, alleged his termination was racially motivated.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the termination was based on the employer's belief that the complainant had counselled a work slow-down and his history of disruptive behaviour, rather than any racial motivation.

The respondents in several human rights complaints regarding 'adults only' condominium policies brought preliminary motions challenging the Board of Inquiry's jurisdiction and the naming of individual directors as parties.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction under section 52(1) of the Charter to determine whether the Code's definition of age violates equality rights.

The Board also declined to remove the individual directors as respondents, noting they could be found personally liable for causing the corporations to discriminate, but removed the 'Board of Directors' as it is not a legal entity.

The complainant, a coal handler, suffered a shoulder injury and was off work on compensation.

After receiving medical clearance from his personal physician to return to work, the respondent employer refused to reinstate him, relying on an earlier assessment indicating he could not perform over-the-shoulder lifting.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant by failing to properly investigate the new medical clearance.

However, damages were significantly reduced to $2,000 because the complainant was negligent in failing to promptly clarify his medical status with the employer.

The complainant, a practicing Sikh, was denied admission to a private school because his religious requirement to wear a turban and uncut hair conflicted with the school's strict uniform policy.

The Board of Inquiry found that the uniform policy resulted in indirect discrimination on the basis of creed.

The school failed to establish that the uniform policy was a reasonable and bona fide requirement, as it could accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.

Furthermore, the school did not qualify for the special interest organization exemption under section 17 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the school to alter its uniform policy to accommodate Sikh students.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being excluded from working in the Inco Pressure Carbonyl (IPC) processing area due to a company policy barring women of child-bearing potential.

The employer argued the policy was necessary to protect fetuses from potential exposure to nickel carbonyl gas.

The Board of Inquiry held that discrimination based on child-bearing potential constitutes sex discrimination.

The Board further found that the exclusionary policy was not a reasonable and bona fide occupational qualification, as the risk to a fetus was minimal and the policy was over-inclusive.

The employer was ordered to train and place the complainant in the IPC area and to abandon the exclusionary policy.

The complainant, a police officer with insulin-dependent diabetes, alleged discrimination and harassment based on handicap after the respondents placed him on restricted duties (prohibiting him from carrying a firearm or driving a police vehicle).

The Board of Inquiry found that between 1981 and 1984, the complainant's diabetes was uncontrolled, resulting in several severe hypoglycemic reactions while on duty.

The respondents' decision to restrict his duties was made in good faith to protect the safety of the public and the officer.

The Board concluded that the complainant was incapable of performing the essential duties of a police officer during that period, and the respondents reasonably accommodated him by maintaining his employment with full pay on restricted duties.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged she was denied a position as a police officer because of her sex.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought production of application forms submitted by other candidates, which the respondent refused to provide due to confidentiality concerns.

The Commission brought a motion arguing that a board of inquiry has implicit power to order document production prior to a hearing.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding no such power under the Human Rights Code or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board held that the proper procedure is for the Commission to request a subpoena duces tecum, call the person as a witness at the hearing, and have the Board determine admissibility, potentially receiving sensitive documents in camera.

The complainant, who has a mental handicap, was employed at a bakery where he was subjected to ongoing verbal abuse and harassment by his supervisor.

The supervisor called him derogatory names, unjustifiably criticized his work, and forced him to eat a sugarless pie as punishment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the supervisor's actions constituted harassment because of handicap under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate employer was held personally liable under the organic theory of corporate liability because the supervisor was part of the directing mind.

The Board awarded the complainant general damages for mental anguish and compensation for lost wages.

The complainant, who suffers from epilepsy and arthritis, had a seizure in the respondent's restaurant.

Following the incident, the respondent refused to serve her in the restaurant, offering only take-out service, due to concerns about her safety and the impact on other customers.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent breached sections 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Code by denying equal treatment with respect to services because of a perceived handicap.

However, the Board declined to award any monetary compensation, finding that the complainant suffered no actual loss or humiliation and had pursued the complaint solely for financial gain.

A compliance order was issued directing future equal access.

The complainant, a psychiatric nurse of Burmese descent, alleged that her employer, North York General Hospital, and her unit administrator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour.

She claimed that constructive criticisms of her nursing care and subsequent disciplinary actions, including suspensions and termination, constituted racial harassment and reprisals for filing a human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the unit administrator's actions were motivated by genuine concerns for patient care and the complainant's insubordination, not racial prejudice.

The evidence demonstrated that the complainant refused to accept constructive criticism and exhibited a distorted perception of reality, leading to the deterioration of her employment relationship.

The complainant, a police officer with diabetes, alleged discrimination after being placed on restricted duties indefinitely following several insulin reactions.

The respondent Board of Commissioners of Police brought a preliminary motion arguing the board of inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was amended to include additional facts and respondents, constituting a second complaint that bypassed the statutory investigation process.

The respondents also argued that decisions made under the Police Act could not be challenged under the Human Rights Code.

The board of inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Commission followed appropriate procedures, the respondents had adequate notice of the allegations and suffered no prejudice, and decisions under the Police Act must conform to the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, a security officer, alleged that he was discriminated against because of his race and place of origin when he was disciplined and transferred by his employer following an investigation into a missing blood pressure kit.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's supervisor lacked effective communication skills and had used racial slurs in the workplace, the specific disciplinary actions and transfer were not racially motivated.

The complaint was dismissed as the employer's actions were based on the complainant's insubordination and inappropriate behaviour during the investigation, rather than his race.

The complainant applied for a job as a waitress at the respondent's restaurant.

After offering her the position, the individual respondent made unwanted sexual advances towards her.

When she rejected these advances, he withdrew the offer of employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant $250 for lost wages and $750 for general damages.