Anthony D. Griffin

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 complainant, a devout Catholic, worked as a bartender and was not required to work on Sundays.

A new owner took over the business and scheduled the complainant to work on Sundays.

When the complainant refused due to his religious convictions, his employment was terminated.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of creed and failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The complainant was awarded $7,250 for lost wages, $4,000 for mental anguish, and $4,000 in punitive damages.

The complainant was discharged from her employment as a salesperson shortly after being diagnosed with Crohn's disease.

The employer alleged the termination was due to poor sales performance and a desire to hire more male staff, though the latter was admitted to be a false excuse.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's disability was a significant factor in her discharge, as her performance issues were aggravated by her illness.

The employer failed to consider any accommodative measures, such as part-time work or split shifts, thereby breaching the duty to accommodate short of undue hardship under the Human Rights Code.

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

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.

The complainant alleged she was evicted from her apartment because she was pregnant and unmarried.

The respondents claimed she was evicted due to noisy parties, problematic roommates, and police visits.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's evidence more credible and concluded that her pregnancy and family status were motivating factors for the eviction.

The respondents were ordered to pay moving expenses, rent differential, and $1,000 in general damages for mental anguish and loss of dignity.

The complainant, a dairy farmer and member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, objected to shipping milk on Sundays for religious reasons.

The Ontario Milk Marketing Board (OMMB) accommodated 'no Sunday shippers' by providing alternate pickup days but charged them an extra transportation fee.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's religious beliefs were sincerely held and protected under the Code.

The Board held that the OMMB's policy of assessing special transportation charges to 'no Sunday shippers' constituted constructive discrimination and that absorbing the costs would not cause undue hardship.

The OMMB was ordered to cease charging the extra fees prospectively.

The complainants, a Khalsa Sikh teacher and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleged that the respondent school board's policy prohibiting the wearing of kirpans on school property discriminated on the basis of creed.

The Board of Inquiry found that the policy, which classified the kirpan as a weapon, had an adverse impact on Khalsa Sikhs who are religiously mandated to wear it at all times.

The respondent failed to prove that accommodating the wearing of kirpans would cause undue hardship regarding school safety, especially given the lack of any incidents involving kirpans in Canadian schools and the respondent's willingness to accommodate proven violent students.

The Board ordered that Khalsa Sikhs be permitted to wear kirpans of reasonable size, worn under clothing and properly secured.

The complainant, an occupational therapist with multiple sclerosis, was denied vacation leave and subsequently terminated after she took the leave despite the denial.

The hospital cited her extensive absenteeism due to her disability and pregnancy-related illness as reasons for denying the leave.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's disability was a factor in the decision to deny her vacation leave, which constituted discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board rejected the application of the labour relations 'work now, grieve later' rule in the human rights context.

The hospital was ordered to pay compensation for lost wages and general damages, and to amend the complainant's personnel file.