Donald J. Catalano

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to conduct the exercise prescribed in a previous order.

As the Court of Appeal could not make the requisite determination on the material before it, the appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

A thoroughbred trainer appealed a stewards' ruling fining him $1,000 for being disrespectful and threatening a racing official.

At the hearing, the trainer admitted to being disrespectful and agreed the $1,000 fine was appropriate, but contested the finding that he had threatened the official.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the sole remaining issue to be substantially hypothetical and moot, as a finding on the threat would have no practical effect on the penalty or outcome.

The complainant, a male, responded to a newspaper advertisement for a dining room server at the respondent's tavern.

He was told by an employee that only waitresses were wanted for the dining room, despite the advertisement mentioning both waiters and waitresses.

The owner preferred to employ only waiters in the beverage lounge and only waitresses in the dining room.

The Board of Inquiry found that the owner's personal preference did not constitute a bona fide occupational qualification and that the respondent refused to employ the complainant because of his sex.

The respondent was ordered to pay $100 in compensation for loss of employment income.