Skip to main content

minicounsel

Legal Resources Directory

/4713

/HRTO/1983/4713

Mears v. Ontario Hydro, 1983 CanLII 4713

December 16, 1983|Cited 12x

Mears v. Ontario Hydro, 1983 CanLII 4713

Case Summary

Seven black employees filed complaints alleging they were laid off by Ontario Hydro because of their race. The Board of Inquiry found that the ranking system used to determine lay-offs was informal and subjective, allowing for racial prejudice to influence the decisions. The Board concluded that foreman Jack Watson discriminated against four of the complainants (Mears, Walker, Trotman, and Wills) and that Ontario Hydro was responsible due to its laissez-faire management practices. The complaints of the other three employees were dismissed. The four successful complainants were awarded compensation for lost wages, general damages for humiliation, and interest.

Mears v. Ontario Hydro

1983-12-16

Ontario Board of Inquiry

CHRR Doc. 84-011

B.L. Mears, Gifford Walker, George Wills, Hollis Trotman, Thomas Atherly, Hurbert Telphia and Leon Francis Complainants

v.

Ontario Hydro and Jack Watson, A. Watkiss, T. Ouellette, and Morris Loveness Respondents

Date of Decision: December 16, 1983

Place:

Cited By (12 cases)

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 2, 2000

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Motion to dismiss human rights complaint for delay and multiple proceedings denied; no actual prejudice demonstrated.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint, arguing that a four-year delay by the Commission and the existence of multiple proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a violation of their section 7 Charter rights.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that section 7 of the Charter does not apply to human rights proceedings.

The Board also held that the respondents failed to demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay, as their claims regarding unavailable witnesses and lost documents were speculative.

Furthermore, the complainant was entitled to pursue her rights in multiple forums, which did not constitute an abuse of process.

Chan v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2000 CanLII 20860

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 23, 1999

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Tribunal awards damages for wage loss, mental anguish, and orders public interest remedies for discrimination.

This is a decision on remedies following a finding that the respondent school boards discriminated against the complainant and subjected him to reprisals in two job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the successor school boards to pay special damages for wage loss and relocation expenses, general damages for loss of the right to freedom from discrimination, and damages for mental anguish.

The Board also ordered public interest remedies, including the posting of the decision, the development of recruitment policies incorporating reprisal protection, and notice to the complainant of future vacancies.

Abouchar v. Toronto (Metro) School Board (No. 4), 1999 CanLII 35161

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 6, 1999

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Complainant awarded wage loss, $10,000 in general damages, and $5,000 for mental anguish for sexual harassment.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the complainant was sexually harassed by co-workers and that management's failure to address the harassment led to her dismissal.

The Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for wage loss, applying a common sense test to limit recovery to the period before intervening events broke the chain of causality.

The Board also awarded $10,000 in general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination and $5,000 for mental anguish, noting the respondents' reckless disregard for the complainant's rights.

A request for legal costs was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

Drummond v. Tempo Paint and Varnish Co., 1999 CanLII 35163

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 30, 1993

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Motions to dismiss human rights complaint for delay and lack of duty to accommodate denied.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on handicap (wrist injury).

The respondents argued the complaint should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay and because the pre-1988 Human Rights Code did not explicitly require reasonable accommodation.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed both motions, finding that a fair hearing was still possible despite the delay, and that a duty to accommodate was inherent in the pre-amendment Code's prohibition against discrimination.

Simms v. Seetech Metal Products, 1993 CanLII 16460

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 9, 1992

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Medical examination of complainant ordered to determine actual wage loss for human rights compensation.

In an interim decision following a finding of age discrimination, the respondents requested that the complainant undergo a medical examination to determine if he would have been on disability leave during the compensation period.

The Commission opposed the request, arguing it was an attempt to relitigate the issue of mitigation.

The Board of Inquiry granted the respondents' request, holding that the medical evidence was relevant to determining the complainant's actual wage loss and did not reopen the already-decided issue of mitigation.

McKee v. Hayes-Dana Inc. (No. 2), 1992 CanLII 14287

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 2, 1992

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Condominium corporation failed to accommodate wheelchair user's pool access, but damages denied due to complainant's behaviour.

The complainant, a wheelchair user, alleged that her condominium corporation discriminated against her by refusing her access to the swimming pool unless she showered in the pool area.

The Board of Inquiry found that the shower area was not accessible to the complainant without a special bench, which was not provided until later.

The Board held that the condominium corporation failed to reasonably accommodate the complainant, as allowing her to shower in her own unit would not have caused undue hardship.

However, the Board declined to award damages due to the complainant's abusive behaviour and the lack of actual loss, ordering only that wheelchair users be permitted to shower in their units.

Munsch v. York Condominium Corp. No. 60, 1992 CanLII 14246

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 10, 1988

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Nightclub and disc jockey found liable for racial discrimination against Black patron; $1,500 damages awarded.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged racial discrimination by a nightclub and its disc jockey after being charged double the standard cover charge, denied entry while white patrons were admitted, and subjected to racially motivated harassment.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed preliminary motions regarding the Limitations Act, Charter section 11, and abuse of process due to delay.

On the merits, the Board found that the disc jockey and the corporate owner discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race and colour.

The complainant was awarded $1,500 in general damages, apportioned 75% to the disc jockey and 25% to the corporate owner.

Shepherd v. Bama Artisans Inc., 1988 CanLII 8890

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 29, 1986

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Employer and general manager found jointly liable for sex discrimination in wrongful dismissal of female supervisor.

The complainant, a plant supervisor with eight years of service, was summarily dismissed by the general manager.

The Board of Inquiry found that the general manager harboured animosity towards the complainant because she was a woman, and that her sex was a material element in the decision to dismiss her.

The corporate respondent and the general manager were found jointly and severally liable for sex discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $24,240 for lost wages, $2,500 for mental anguish, and interest.

Whitehead v. Servodyne Canada Ltd., 1986 CanLII 6525

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 6, 1986

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Preliminary objections regarding delay, retrospective application, and Commission procedure dismissed in sex discrimination complaint.

The Board of Inquiry ruled on preliminary matters regarding complaints of sex discrimination in union membership.

The respondents argued that the Commission failed to follow the proper sequence of investigation and conciliation, that the new Code could not apply retrospectively, and that the delay in proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the Commission fulfilled its duties, the relevant statutory prohibitions remained substantially unchanged, and the delay caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Ontario Professional Firefighters Association was also added as a party respondent.

McMinn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) Professional Firefighters Assn., 1986 CanLII 6521

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 18, 1985

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Complainant awarded $34,886.33 in special and general damages plus interest for racial discrimination in employment.

The complainant was previously found to have been discriminated against on the basis of race and colour when denied the opportunity to work as a welder on a project in Jamaica.

In this remedy decision, the Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for lost wages, pension contributions, and health and welfare benefits, deducting income earned in mitigation.

The Board found the complainant reasonably mitigated his damages despite refusing a short-term job offer in Alberta.

General damages of $4,500 were awarded for the devastating effect the discrimination had on the complainant.

Total damages of $34,886.33 plus interest were ordered.

Gladstone Leslie Scott v. Foster Wheeler Ltd., 1985 CanLII 5249

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 11, 1985

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Human rights complaint dismissed; employee's discipline and transfer were due to insubordination, not racial discrimination.

The complainant, a security officer, alleged that he was discriminated against because of his race and place of origin when he was disciplined and transferred by his employer following an investigation into a missing blood pressure kit.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainant's supervisor lacked effective communication skills and had used racial slurs in the workplace, the specific disciplinary actions and transfer were not racially motivated.

The complaint was dismissed as the employer's actions were based on the complainant's insubordination and inappropriate behaviour during the investigation, rather than his race.

Fu v. Ontario (Government Protection Service), 1985 CanLII 5209

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 29, 1984

Ontario coat of arms

Ontario coat of arms

Landlord found liable for racial discrimination for refusing commercial lease assignments to East Indian purchasers.

The complainants, who operated a tuck shop in a luxury apartment building, sought to assign their commercial lease to prospective purchasers.

The respondent landlord and its vice-president repeatedly refused to consent to assignments when the prospective purchasers were of East Indian or Pakistani origin.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the prospective purchasers and, consequently, against the complainants themselves with respect to a term or condition of their occupancy.

The Board ordered the respondents to pay damages for financial losses, mental anguish, and interest to the complainants.

West End Construction Ltd. v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour) (No. 2), 1984 CanLII 5080

Showing 12 of 12 citing cases