Peter P. Mercer

The respondents brought a motion for costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of the underlying human rights complaints.

The respondents argued that the complaints were trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and caused them undue hardship due to the Commission's conduct and the length of the proceedings.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complaints were instituted in good faith and were not devoid of merit.

While acknowledging the extraordinary delay and the disproportionate responsibility of Commission counsel for protracting the hearing, the Board concluded that the respondents, as entities of considerable means, did not suffer undue hardship within the meaning of section 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The complainants, a man of Arab ancestry and a woman from Iran, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and sex after they were denied permanent lab analyst positions at the respondent's chemical plant.

The adjudicator found that the male complainant was discriminatorily excluded from the interview process despite having superior qualifications to the successful white male candidates.

The adjudicator also found that the female complainant's work performance was unfairly assessed due to her gender and race, and that she was subjected to a poisoned work environment characterized by the display of pornography and a male-dominated culture.

The complaints were upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages for mental anguish and injury to dignity.

The complainant, the first female supervisor on the plant floor at De Havilland, alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment.

She named her employer and two union committeemen as respondents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints against the individual committeemen, finding their conduct, while confrontational and profane, was largely directed at her aggressive supervisory style rather than her gender.

However, the Board found the employer liable for failing to take adequate steps to prevent and address the broader pattern of harassment she faced from other employees, which included obscene phone calls, pornographic materials, and vandalism.

The employer was ordered to pay $1,000 in general damages for mental anguish.

The respondent union brought a motion requesting further particulars of the human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already made ample disclosure, but ordered the Commission to allow the union to re-examine its file.

The Commission also brought a motion seeking guidance on the presentation of evidence regarding reasonable accommodation.

The Board ruled that the Commission should elicit evidence on reasonable accommodation during its case-in-chief, even though the burden of proving accommodation short of undue hardship rests on the respondents.

The complainant, a 62-year-old employee with over 39 years of service within the Bata shoe organization, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age.

The respondent employer maintained that the termination was due to poor performance and a necessary corporate reorganization to address financial difficulties.

The Board of Inquiry found no evidence of age discrimination, concluding that the complainant and other older employees were terminated for legitimate business reasons.

The respondents' request for costs against the Commission for a poor investigation was denied, as the complaint was not found to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.