Ronald W. McInnes

The complainant, a francophone and gay man, alleged discrimination and harassment in accommodation by his landlord and the landlord's agents.

The Board of Inquiry found that the apartment manager's refusal to accept a rent cheque written in French constituted discrimination based on ancestry under s. 2(1) of the Human Rights Code, and awarded $300 in damages.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations of harassment based on sexual orientation, concluding that sexual orientation was not a prohibited ground for harassment under s. 2(2) of the Code at the time, and could not be read into the provision.

The complainant, who has a disability resulting from a head injury that causes a limp and slurred speech, was refused service at an LCBO store because employees perceived him to be intoxicated.

The Board of Inquiry found that the refusal did not constitute direct discrimination, as the complainant failed to clarify his condition when given the opportunity.

However, the Board found that the LCBO's application of the Liquor Licence Act prohibition against serving intoxicated persons constituted constructive (adverse effect) discrimination against persons with disabilities whose symptoms mimic intoxication.

The LCBO failed to establish a defence under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code because it lacked adequate training programs to accommodate such persons.

The Board declined to award general damages due to the complainant's conduct but recommended the LCBO improve its training.

The respondents brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator disqualify himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the adjudicator had an outstanding human rights complaint before the Commission.

The respondents argued the adjudicator might favour the Commission to induce a favourable outcome in his own case.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the apprehension of bias was not reasonably held.

Involvement as a party in another case with different issues, where the decision could have no effect on the other proceeding, does not constitute grounds for removal.

The complainant, who had AIDS, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him by refusing him service and providing him with unequal treatment (such as serving him with plastic utensils instead of regular china) at their restaurant.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant and his wife were credible witnesses and that the respondents had discriminated against the complainant because of his handicap.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $4,500 in general damages, with the individual respondent jointly and severally liable for $1,500 of that amount.

The complainant, a single mother, applied to rent a house from the respondent.

The respondent refused her application because she had a dog and because he wanted a male tenant who could perform household maintenance.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the respondent would have refused the application anyway due to the dog, his refusal to consider the complainant because of her sex was an operative factor based on stereotypical assumptions.

The Board concluded this constituted sex discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $1,000 in general damages for injury to her dignity and self-respect, but no special damages were awarded since she would not have obtained the accommodation regardless.