Sri-Guggan Sri-Skanda-Rajah

The complainants, a Black mother and daughter, alleged that the respondents discriminated against them on the basis of race by refusing to rent them an apartment.

The mother viewed the apartment on behalf of her daughter and was told the next day it was rented.

A white friend called later and was told it was available.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The adjudicator found that a prima facie case of discrimination was established and ordered the respondents to pay general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and to implement a non-discriminatory tenant application form.

The complainant alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her on the basis of family status by denying her the opportunity to rent an apartment because she had a child.

The respondent claimed the apartment was unsafe for children and that it had been reserved for two men.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondent's explanations implausible and concluded that she had constructively excluded the complainant due to a de facto 'adults only' policy.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the discriminatory practice, pay $1,000 in general damages, and reimburse the complainant for the rent differential incurred.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order that reinstated the respondent employee and compensated her for lost wages.

The respondent alleged that her hours were reduced and her employment subsequently terminated as a reprisal for receiving pay equity downpayments, contrary to section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that its decisions were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus, given the negative comments and actions of the Executive Director and Board President regarding pay equity.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent reinstated to her full-time position with compensation for lost wages and interest.

The complainant, a black francophone man of Haitian origin, alleged that he was repeatedly harassed by co-workers at Westinghouse because of his race, colour, and place of origin.

The co-workers used derogatory language and racial slurs.

The complainant reported the harassment to management, but the employer failed to conduct a proper investigation or take adequate steps to stop the harassment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was subjected to a course of vexatious comment and conduct based on prohibited grounds, and that the employer's response was grossly inadequate.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $7,500 in damages for mental anguish.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding the scheduling of the resumption of a hearing into a human rights complaint.

After reviewing written submissions from the parties, the panel provided two options: resume the hearing earlier than April 2, 1997, to continue the cross-examination of the complainant, or maintain the status quo and resume on April 2, 1997.

The parties were directed to notify the Deputy Registrar if they unanimously chose the earlier resumption date.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding a motion in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The panel ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the potential outcomes of the motion, which included options for resuming the hearing before or after April 2, 1997, and the scope of the proceedings upon resumption.