Harvey Strosberg

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in dental services on the basis of handicap (AIDS), the respondent sought costs under s. 40(6) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant acted in bad faith by being untruthful about central matters, including the respondent's offer to treat him at the end of the day.

While the Commission did not act in bad faith, it failed to adequately investigate the complaint or seek professional medical advice regarding treatment protocols.

The combination of the complainant's bad faith and the Commission's investigative failures caused undue hardship to the respondent.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a solicitor-client basis, up to a maximum of $80,000.

The complainant, a person living with AIDS, alleged that the respondent dentist discriminated against him by refusing or delaying dental treatment because of his handicap.

The Board of Inquiry found that AIDS is a handicap under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Board concluded that the respondent did not refuse treatment but merely postponed it to the end of the day.

The Board held that the postponement was justified under section 16 of the Code because proper dental procedure for an AIDS patient required consultation with a physician and a deeper cleaning performed by the dentist rather than a hygienist, which could not be accommodated during the originally scheduled appointment without undue hardship.