Steven J. Faughnan

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed and solicited by the Chief Financial Officer of her employer during her probationary period, and subsequently dismissed for refusing his advances.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did engage in sexual harassment and solicitation, violating the Human Rights Code, and awarded $17,500 in general damages and damages for mental anguish.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the CEO, finding that the decision to terminate the complainant was made prior to the culminating incident of harassment, was based on poor sales performance, and was not tainted by discrimination.

The complainant alleged that he was terminated from his employment at a clothing recycling warehouse because he claimed workers' compensation benefits for a back injury sustained at work.

The respondents denied the injury occurred and claimed the complainant quit voluntarily.

The Tribunal found that the complainant did suffer a workplace injury and that the individual respondent terminated his employment after learning of the WSIB claim, issuing a Record of Employment falsely stating the complainant had quit.

The Tribunal concluded this constituted discrimination because of disability under the Human Rights Code and awarded $10,000 in general damages and $5,146 in special damages for lost wages.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that his landlords, a brother and sister, subjected him to severe racial harassment and discrimination over a period of years, culminating in his eviction.

The respondents repeatedly used racial slurs and made false accusations against him.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct constituted harassment and created a poisoned environment in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $415 in special damages, and the surviving respondent was ordered to attend anti-discrimination training and implement a human rights policy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether the Complainant complied with the conditions of an earlier interim decision, which allowed amendments to the complaint to claim general and liquidated damages, provided steps were taken to avoid double indemnification with a concurrent civil action.

The Respondents argued the Complainant failed to amend the civil claim to remove the overlapping damages.

The Tribunal found that the Complainant's written assurances not to seek double indemnification satisfied the condition, noting that any potential overlap could be addressed at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed the amended pleadings were in full force and set a schedule for further disclosure and responses.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding brought an interim motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator.

The complainant and the Commission argued that the adjudicator's interventions during the cross-examination of the unrepresented respondent created an appearance of partiality.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the limited interventions in a highly emotional hearing with unrepresented parties did not meet the threshold for disqualification under the reasonable person test.

The complainant, who suffers from a mental disorder, sought to rent a room in the respondent's rooming house.

After paying the first and last month's rent and receiving the keys, the complainant disclosed her disability to the respondent over the telephone.

The respondent subsequently imposed discriminatory conditions on her tenancy, including a requirement that she leave the house when other tenants had guests over.

The complainant reasonably terminated the agreement and sought the return of her money, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal found that the respondent infringed the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in general damages, $600 in special damages, and to post Human Rights Code cards in the rooming house.

The Complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaints to claim general and liquidated damages for alleged harm to his medical condition caused by the denial of access to services, as well as legal fees.

The Respondents opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice due to delay and the Complainant's previous abandonment of these claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments for general and liquidated damages, finding that the Respondents failed to establish actual prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to amend the complaints to claim legal fees, as it lacks jurisdiction to award costs to a complainant under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) brought a motion, supported by the co-respondent Children at Risk, to bifurcate the human rights hearing.

MCSS proposed that the Board first determine whether Children at Risk infringed the Human Rights Code by failing to provide services in French, before determining whether MCSS infringed the Code by funding the program.

The Commission and the complainant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complex issues of liability, accommodation, and funding could result in overlapping evidence, and that bifurcating the hearing risked delaying the proceedings and losing scheduled hearing dates.

The respondent Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing, proposing that the liability of the co-respondent, Children at Risk, be determined first.

The motion was supported by Children at Risk but opposed by the Commission and the complainant.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motion, finding that the complex issues of liability could not be neatly delineated and that hearing the matter in stages risked duplication of evidence, gaps in evidence, and significant delay.

The Board concluded that the risk of delay outweighed any asserted convenience.

The complainant, who has epilepsy, was hired to work at a bagel shop.

After suffering a brief seizure at work, the employer terminated her employment, citing concerns that customers would be scared away and that she might injure herself.

The employer did not request medical information or explore accommodation options.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability, relying on stereotypical assumptions rather than assessing her actual abilities.

The employer failed to establish a defence under s. 17 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded $3,500 in general damages and $600 in special damages for lost wages, along with pre- and post-judgment interest.

Transportation Action Now Inc. (TAN) brought a motion by way of written submissions seeking intervenor status in human rights complaints regarding accessible transportation.

TAN sought to make written submissions on issues including equal levels of public transportation service and the application of accommodation principles.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motion, finding that TAN's positions overlapped with those of the Commission and the complainants, and that TAN did not offer a different perspective that would assist the Board as amicus curiae.

Transportation Action Now Inc. (TAN) brought a motion seeking intervenor status in human rights complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of accessible transportation services.

TAN sought to make written submissions on issues including whether the services offered qualified as a special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that TAN's positions overlapped with those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainants, and that TAN did not offer a different perspective that would assist the Board as amicus curiae.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding accessible transit services brought motions for disclosure and particulars prior to filing their responding pleadings.

The Board of Inquiry held that the motions were not premature, as the rules permit such requests at any stage of the proceeding.

The Board ordered the Commission to provide particulars regarding alleged physical barriers to transit access and to disclose a Transit Access Survey and its responses, finding them arguably relevant to the respondents' undue hardship defence.

However, the Board declined to order the complainants to produce medical reports or further particulars of certain other allegations at the pleadings stage, finding that sufficient information had been provided to enable the respondents to plead.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay human rights complaints alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, arguing that the Commission failed to properly attempt settlement, that the complaints were delayed, and that a settlement with the franchisor (TDL) triggered res judicata.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commission's pre-referral conduct unless it amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board held that res judicata did not apply to the TDL settlement and that the respondents failed to demonstrate actual, significant prejudice resulting from the delay or the Commission's conduct to justify a stay for abuse of process.

A request to remove certain corporate respondents was also denied.