Brian J. Smith

The complainant, a Black man, alleged discrimination and harassment based on race, colour, and disability by his former employer and its directing mind.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had quit his employment prior to a car accident, dismissing the disability claim.

However, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent uttered a racial slur to the complainant when he returned his tools, violating s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the corporate respondent deliberately withheld the complainant's final paperwork and part of his earnings, constituting racial harassment under s. 5(2).

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $7,000 in general damages and mental anguish, and to complete human rights training.

The complainant, a former dental assistant, alleged that her employer, a dentist, sexually harassed her, made unwelcome sexual advances, and engaged in reprisals when she rejected his advances and resigned.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included unwanted touching, persistent personal phone calls, and retaliatory actions such as withholding her Record of Employment and sending fabricated dental bills to a collection agency, constituted sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant $36,354 in total damages, including compensation for loss of right, reprisal, mental anguish, and lost wages, and ordered the respondent to attend anti-discrimination training.

The applicant, a teacher with multiple sclerosis, sought judicial review of the Human Rights Commission's decisions refusing to refer her complaints of discrimination and reprisal to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decisions were not patently unreasonable as there was ample evidence to support its conclusions regarding the school board's accommodation efforts and the union's representation.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, including an argument based on the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

Five female complainants alleged that the respondent, operating as Patrons Online, subjected them to sexual solicitation and harassment during job interviews and subsequent employment.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent abused his position of power to sexually harass the complainants, asking inappropriate personal questions, demanding dates, and in one case, luring a complainant to his residence.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent retaliated against three complainants by terminating their employment when they rejected his advances, and threatened another with a lawsuit for attempting to complain.

The Tribunal awarded general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for loss of income to the complainants, and ordered public interest remedies including the implementation of a workplace harassment policy.

The complainant, a single mother of three teenaged sons, applied to rent a three-bedroom apartment.

The property manager lost her application and refused to allow her to reapply, citing a preference for 'ideal' families and stating that a family with three teenagers was not suitable for the unit.

The Human Rights Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal awarded $4,000 in general damages and ordered the respondents to cease and desist from refusing to rent to families with teenaged children.

The reprisal claim was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to compel the Respondent to produce certain documents over which the Respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal first determined that the Respondent's description of the documents was insufficient to establish privilege and ordered the documents to be produced for inspection by the Tribunal.

After inspecting the documents, the majority of the Tribunal found that legal advice privilege attached to some of the documents, as they were part of the continuum of communication between government officials and legal counsel regarding the de-listing of sex re-assignment surgery.

However, the Tribunal ordered the production of other documents or portions thereof where privilege was not established or had been waived.

A partial dissent would have ordered full production of two specific documents, finding that privilege had been waived.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend several complaints to correct misnomers regarding the respondent's name and business aliases, and to add the ground of reprisal to one of the complaints.

The respondent did not attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the respondent would suffer no prejudice from the correction of misnomers and that the reprisal allegations were already set out in the original complaint and statement of facts.

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.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims regarding the distribution of proceeds from two estate-freeze trusts.

The appellant was a potential beneficiary, but the trustees exercised their broad discretion to deny him any benefit.

The appellant argued there was a triable issue of breach of trust and fraud on a power.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no triable issue of breach of trust given the trustees' broad discretion.

The Court further held that even if the distribution were set aside for fraud on a power, the trustee would retain discretion and had made it clear he would not exercise it in favour of the appellant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.