Dennis Brown

The complainants, two gay men in long-term same-sex relationships, alleged that the Ministry of Transportation discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation by requiring them to obtain and pay for a safety standards certificate when transferring vehicle ownership to or from their partners.

Opposite-sex spouses were exempt from this requirement.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ministry's actions constituted discrimination in the provision of services based on sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Ministry to compensate the complainants and to cease its practice of automatically excluding same-sex couples from the spousal exemption.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.

The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.

The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed his disciplinary conviction and penalty for deceit, arising from a false statement he made regarding the escape of an arrested person.

The appellant argued that the offence of deceit requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' and that the maximum penalty for a minor offence was appropriate given the facts.

The appellant, a police constable appealing a conviction for deceit, brought a preliminary motion requesting that a Commission member disqualify himself on the ground of perceived bias.

The motion was based on a newspaper article written by the member criticizing the Special Investigations Unit, and a letter from the Police Association of Ontario expressing a lack of confidence in the member.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would not conclude that the member had a bias that would impede his ability to decide the appeal objectively and impartially.

Two employees filed human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination and harassment.

One complainant was subjected to racial slurs and physical assaults by a co-worker.

The Board found the co-worker personally liable for racial harassment but dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding the employer did not condone the conduct and had disciplined the co-worker.

The second complainant, a union steward, alleged his termination was racially motivated.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the termination was based on the employer's belief that the complainant had counselled a work slow-down and his history of disruptive behaviour, rather than any racial motivation.