Peter A. Cumming

The complainant was hired as a spare housekeeper at the respondent hospital, where her husband also worked in the maintenance and housekeeping department.

The hospital administrator terminated her employment upon discovering her marital status, citing an unwritten policy against spouses working in the same department.

The Board of Inquiry found this constituted prima facie discrimination on the basis of marital status.

The Board rejected the employer's defences, holding that the restriction was not a bona fide occupational qualification under section 23(b) of the Human Rights Code, and that the nepotism exemption in section 23(d) only applies to the initial granting or withholding of employment, not to the termination of an existing employee.

The complainant was awarded damages for lost wages and general damages.

The complainants, who operated a tuck shop in a luxury apartment building, sought to assign their commercial lease to prospective purchasers.

The respondent landlord and its vice-president repeatedly refused to consent to assignments when the prospective purchasers were of East Indian or Pakistani origin.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the prospective purchasers and, consequently, against the complainants themselves with respect to a term or condition of their occupancy.

The Board ordered the respondents to pay damages for financial losses, mental anguish, and interest to the complainants.

The complainant, a 50-year-old black woman, alleged she was denied employment as a correctional officer due to her race, sex, and age.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission presented extensive statistical evidence demonstrating systemic bias against women and non-Europeans in the respondent's hiring practices, which the Board accepted as establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the Board dismissed the individual complaint, finding that the superintendent who interviewed the complainant assessed her fairly and objectively, and reasonably concluded she lacked the necessary characteristics to manage inmates effectively.

The complainant was employed by the corporate respondent to cut grass on a sod farm.

She alleged that the individual respondent, the president of the corporate respondent, sexually harassed her by making sexual advances and subsequently terminating her employment when she refused to comply.

The Board of Inquiry accepted the complainant's evidence over the respondent's, finding that the respondent made a sexual advance coupled with a threat of reprisal, and terminated her employment because she would not comply.

The Board found this conduct constituted sexual harassment contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and ordered the respondents to pay damages for lost wages and general damages.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination in the refusal to allow commercial lease sublets.

The respondents argued the complaints should be dismissed due to misnomer of the corporate respondent, the addition of an individual respondent, the expiration of limitation periods, and the improper use of a class action.

The Board of Inquiry rejected all grounds for dismissal, finding that the Limitations Act does not apply to administrative human rights proceedings, that class actions are permissible under the Code, and that the procedural amendments caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The complainants alleged that they were sexually harassed and constructively dismissed by their employer while working at a donut shop.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer exploited the vulnerable position of one complainant, who was on a temporary absence from jail and required employment to remain out of custody.

The Board concluded that the employer's persistent sexual advances and subsequent verbal abuse when rebuffed constituted sex discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay general damages and lost wages to both complainants.

The complainant, an Orthodox Jew, was employed as a maintenance mechanic.

The employer instituted a training program that required the complainant to work on Saturdays.

The complainant refused due to his religious beliefs, which prohibit working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

The employer terminated his employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant because of his creed.

The Board held that the Saturday work requirement was not a business necessity and that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the complainant.

The Board ordered reinstatement and awarded $1,500 in general damages for injury to dignity.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed and summarily dismissed by her employer after refusing his sexual advances.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct constituted discrimination on the basis of sex, creating a hostile and intimidating work environment.

The Board reviewed the law on damages under human rights legislation and awarded the complainant $500 for lost wages and $1,000 in general damages for the psychological impact of the harassment.

The complainant, an East Indian warehouse worker, alleged that his termination and the treatment he received during his employment constituted discrimination based on race.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's dismissal for insubordination was unfair, it was not motivated by racial discrimination.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the terms and conditions of employment, finding that the workplace was permeated with racial name-calling and harassment.

The employer was held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to eradicate this discriminatory environment.

The complainant was awarded $1,000 in general damages, and the employer was ordered to establish a Management-Employee Race Relations Committee.

The complainants, two female employees, alleged that they were sexually harassed by their employer, the individual respondent, who repeatedly subjected them to unwanted physical contact and sexual advances.

The complainants terminated their employment because they could no longer tolerate the harassment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the individual respondent's conduct constituted sex discrimination under section 4 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, as compliance with his sexual advances was made a condition of their employment.

The Board held the individual respondent and the corporate respondent jointly and severally liable, awarding damages for lost wages and general damages for the humiliating and intimidating work environment.

The complainant alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex when her application for a position as a police constable with the Timmins Police Force was rejected.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Chief of Police rejected her application simply because he did not wish to have female police constables, and that the Board of Commissioners knew or should have known of this discriminatory practice.

The respondents were found to have violated sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondents to cease contravening the Code, allow the complainant to take the standard recruitment test, and pay $3,000 in general damages for humiliation and public embarrassment.

The complainant, a 40-year-old man with a university degree, alleged that Ontario Hydro discriminated against him on the basis of age when an employment officer discouraged him from applying for an apprentice electrician position.

The Board of Inquiry conducted an extensive review of Canadian and American law on age discrimination and bona fide occupational qualifications.

The Board found that the respondent's hiring personnel held a stereotypical view that apprentices should be young and that the complainant was arbitrarily excluded from consideration because of his age, despite his lack of related journeyman experience.

The Board concluded that age was an unlawful motivating factor in the refusal to consider his application.

The respondent was ordered to cease contravening the Code and to reconsider the complainant's application on its merits without regard to age, though no damages were awarded.

The complainant, a black woman from Jamaica, was dismissed from her job as a keypunch operator after 21 months.

She alleged that her dismissal was based on her race and colour, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the employer's manner of dismissal was unfair and lacked proper warning about her performance shortcomings, there was no evidence of racial discrimination.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Black woman, purchased a hair salon business and assumed its commercial lease.

The respondent landlord exhibited racial animus upon meeting her, expressing anger to the previous tenant for selling to 'such a race of people'.

The landlord subsequently harassed the complainant by placing a 'for sale' sign on the property, refusing to accept rent directly, and demanding an above-market rent of $675 per month upon lease renewal.

When the complainant tendered $450, the landlord had a bailiff lock her out of the premises.

The Board of Inquiry found that the landlord's conduct constituted unlawful discrimination with respect to the occupancy of a commercial unit based on race and colour.

The Board ordered the renewal rent set at $550 per month and awarded the complainant $800 in general damages for injury to dignity, plus $1,409.80 in special damages for the bailiff lockout and rent overpayments.