Board of Inquiry Decision under the ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
Rabindranath Rampersad Complainant
v.
547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, Vince Spagnuolo and Jack Witte Respondents
Place: Toronto, Ontario
Before: Ian C. Springate
Comm. Decision No.: 291
Appearances by: Joan Haberman, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Rabindranath Rampersad Stuart Rosenthal, Counsel for Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, Vince Spagnuolo, and Jack Witte
RACE, COLOUR AND PLACE OF ORIGIN — promotion denied on the basis of race
Summary: The Board of Inquiry finds that Vintage Grand Touring Automotives discriminated against Rabindranath Rampersad when it failed to consider him for the position of head painter because of his race.
Rabindranath Rampersad is black. He is of East Indian origin and grew up in Trinidad. In April 1985 he was employed by Vintage Grand Touring to prepare and paint automobiles. In July 1985, Mr. Rampersad was informed by Mr. Witte, the owner, that he intended to hire a head painter. Mr. Spagnuolo, the shop foreman, was responsible for selecting the new head painter.
The Board of Inquiry finds that Spagnuolo did not consider Rampersad for the position because of his race, and that this constitutes a contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Because of this discrimination, and because Rampersad's income was likely to be reduced due to the addition of a head painter to the staff, Rampersad quit his job.
The Board dismisses the complaint against Mr. Witte, the owner, in his personal capacity. It finds the corporate respondent and Vince Spagnuolo liable for the discrimination and orders them to pay Rampersad $1441.36 in compensation for lost wages, $500 in general damages, and $364.80 in interest on the award.
1These proceeding arise out of a complaint filed by Mr. Rabindranath Rampersad with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") alleging that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the provisions of sections 4(1) and 8 of the Human Rights Code.
2Mr. Rampersad is black. He testified that his ethnic origin is East Indian. Mr. Rampersad grew up in Trinidad where his mother operated an automotive supply business. After completing his schooling, Mr. Rampersad went to work for his mother's company. For about two years he spent his evenings at an automotive body shop learning how to prepare (or "prep") a car to be painted and then to paint it. Once he became proficient in the work, his mother opened a new business, Rampersad Auto and Tire Repairs, with Mr. Rampersad in charge. The firm employed two men to do body work and one to help Mr. Rampersad prep cars for painting. Mr. Rampersad did the actual painting work.
3Mr. Rampersad moved to Canada in 1978. Shortly after his arrival he commenced working at R & D Auto Collision in Toronto. Mr. Rampersad described R & D as "an average shop" where he painted cars that he himself had prepped, as well as the cars prepped by another employee. He was paid an hourly wage rate. In or about 1982 Mr. Rampersad obtained employment at Centre Honda. Mr. Rampersad testified that the work at Centre Honda involved newer cars and had to be of a high quality. Initially, Mr. Rampersad was one of three employees who both prepped and painted cars. Mr. Rampersad was paid 38 percent of the cost charged to the customer for the painting of a car. Mr. Rampersad testified that about October, 1984, Centre Honda hired a new assistant manager who had previously been employed at another dealership. The assistant manager brought with him a number of employees from the other dealership. Because of the additional employees, Mr. Rampersad experienced a reduction in his income. In his examination in chief, Mr. Rampersad testified that the addition of the extra employees "was causing a little bit of confusion so I decided to move along." In cross-examination, Mr. Rampersad initially seemed uncertain as to whether he had quit his job or been laid off. Subsequently, however, he indicated that he had complained to the manager of the body shop about the reduction in his wages and indicated he could obtain employment elsewhere, to which the manager replied that he was laid off. Mr. Rampersad later received documentation from the company which stated that he had quit his employment.
4Mr. Rampersad commenced employment at 547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives ("Vintage"), on April 16, 1985. He was hired by the then manager of Vintage's shop, Mr. Bob Taylor. Mr. Taylor, who had previously worked at Centre Honda, hired Mr. Rampersad after first discussing the matter with Mr. Jack Witte, the owner of Vintage. Mr. Rampersad was hired to work in the company's paint department. The paint department employed two other black employees, namely Roy Carty and Seibert Bishop, and two white employees, Norm Sissing, the head painter, and "Frank," a young trainee. At some point Frank left and was replaced by another young white trainee. Approximately one month after Mr. Rampersad commenced working at Vintage, Mr. Sissing left. According to Mr. Rampersad, after Mr. Sissing left, he and Mr. Bishop did all of the painting. The two of them also prepped cars. Although the evidence on point is not clear, I gather that Mr. Carty as well as Frank and his replacement assisted with the prep work. Employees were paid 40 percent of the amount charged to a customer for painting a car. Of this, 20 percent was allocated to prepping and 20 percent to the actual painting. Mr. Rampersad testified that it took him about a day to prep a car, but only an hour or two to paint one. The evidence indicates that Mr. Rampersad was an exceptionally fast worker and that the quality of his work was generally acceptable.
5In addition to the employees in the paint department, Vintage employed four body shop men, three of whom were white and one black. One of the white employees was Mr. Vince Spagnuolo. Although Mr. Spagnuolo was a relatively young man in his 20s, his work was highly regarded by Mr. Witte. In the summer of 1985, after Mr. Taylor had left the company's employ, Mr. Witte made Mr. Spagnuolo foreman over both the body shop and paint department employees. It was the evidence of Mr. Witte that as a foreman Mr. Spagnuolo estimated the cost of work and assigned work to employees, but that he had no power to hire or fire. Mr. Spagnuolo testified that while the final decision to hire an individual was made by Mr. Witte, one of his functions was to keep an eye open for good people and bring them into the shop. Certain evidence, which is touched on in some detail below, indicates that Mr. Spagnuolo could in fact effectively recommend the hiring of an employee. Mr. Spagnuolo also indicated that as the foreman he would check finished cars to ascertain whether they should be delivered to customers. Taking all of this evidence into account, I am satisfied that after his promotion to foreman, Mr. Spagnuolo exercised managerial functions on behalf of Vintage.
6There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Mr. Spagnuolo made disparaging remarks about black employees. Mr. Rampersad testified that on one occasion, Mr. Spagnuolo commented to him that black people come to this country and think they know more than anyone else. Mr. Spagnuolo denied making the statement. Mr. Rampersad indicated that because he worked side by side with Mr. Carty and Mr. Bishop, he believed they would have over-heard Mr. Spagnuolo make the comment in question. Both Mr. Carty and Mr. Bishop, however, testified that they had not heard Mr. Spagnuolo make such a comment. Mr. Rampersad also testified that after Mr. Spagnuolo learned he was to be made foreman, he stated that when he became foreman, no black person would get a promotion. According to Mr. Rampersad, Mr. Spagnuolo made the comment not only to himself, but also to Mr. Bishop and Mr. Carty. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Carty, however, indicated that they had not heard Mr. Spagnuolo make such a statement. Mr. Spagnuolo's appointment as foreman was announced by Mr. Witte at a meeting of employees. According to Mr. Rampersad, when Mr. Witte made the announcement, he stated that Mr. Spagnuolo had made a lot of racial remarks, to which Mr. Witte made no reply. Mr. Witte testified that he had no recollection of Mr. Rampersad making such a statement. Mr. Witte's evidence on point was supported by Mr. Bishop and Mr. Carty, as well as by Mr. Matthew Kontopidis, a former employee called as a witness by counsel for the Commission.
7Mr. Kontopidis is a white auto body repair man. He was hired by Vintage prior to the time that Mr. Spagnuolo was made foreman. According to Mr. Kontopidis, when he was hired he noticed that the white and black employees ate their lunches in separate groups. Initially he did not join either of the groups, but rather ate his lunch at his tool box. According to Mr. Kontopidis, on one occasion when he was sitting by his tool box, Mr. Spagnuolo came over to talk with him. Mr. Kontopidis testified that during their discussion, he asked Mr. Spagnuolo what he thought about the shop, to which Mr. Spagnuolo replied that he thought a lot about the place "but he felt uncomfortable about them black guys." Mr. Kontopidis further testified that Mr. Spagnuolo mentioned that the black employees kept the place like a pigsty and behaved like pigs. According to Mr. Kontopidis, subsequent to this discussion he joined the black employees for lunch. He said he did so because it was summer and they went outside to eat. Shortly after the events described below, Mr. Kontopidis quit his employment at Vintage to take another job.
8Apart from Mr. Rampersad's version of a discussion between himself and Mr. Witte which preceded his departure from Vintage, it is not claimed that Mr. Witte made any racist comments. Mr. Witte testified that in the twenty years that he has owned and managed body shops, he has employed a "League of Nations." Counsel for Vintage called as a witness Mr. Cecil Tahair, who is black. Mr. Tahair worked as a supervisor at Vintage from 1977 to 1985 when he joined another firm. Mr. Tahair testified that he did not experience any race relations problems at Vintage. He also testified that he had not heard Mr. Spagnuolo make any racist comments.
9It was the evidence of Mr. Witte that he was not satisfied with the quality of work being performed in the paint department. He further testified that the shop was in danger of losing Downtown Fine Cars, its main customer. Accordingly, said Mr. Witte, he decided to change to a system where there was a head painter responsible for the paint department. He testified that he wanted a "top-notch painter" who could be in charge of the whole operation, and who he could hold accountable when things went wrong. As noted above, prior to his leaving Mr. Sissing had functioned as the head painter.
10Prior to Mr. Witte announcing that there would be a head painter, a white individual identified only as "Angelo" was brought into the shop by Mr. Spagnuolo. Mr. Witte testified that Angelo was about 20 and not brought in as a head painter. Mr. Rampersad, however, testified that Mr. Spagnuolo had indicated to him that Angelo was to be in charge of the paint shop. Angelo's work proved to be below an acceptable level, and he left the shop approximately four days after he arrived.
11On July 17, 1985 Mr. Witte called Mr. Rampersad into his office and advised him of his decision to have a head painter. Mr. Witte also indicated that none of the current painters would be placed in the position. It appears that at the time there were four employees in the paint shop. One was a young white trainee who apparently did no actual painting. Mr. Carty, who is black, did little or no painting but concentrated on the prep work. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rampersad, both of whom are black, did most, if not all, of the painting. It was Mr. Rampersad's evidence that Mr. Witte stated to him that "I don't think you kind of people are qualified to be a head painter," which he took to be a reference to black people. Mr. Witte, however, testified that what he said was "no one in this shop is qualified to be the head painter. I have to find another one."
12Mr. Rampersad testified that Mr. Witte also advised him that the head painter would be doing all the painting, meaning that he would be doing only prep work, which paid less per hour than actual painting work. According to Mr. Rampersad, he advised Mr. Witte that he would stay only if he could do both prepping and painting, and that Mr. Witte would have to fire him if he did not want it that way. According to Mr. Rampersad, later that day Mr. Witte told him "I got to let you go. I don't want you." Mr. Witte's version of the discussion, however, was quite different. He stated that Mr. Rampersad asked him if he would continue to paint, to which he replied that it would be up to the head painter to allocate the work. According to Mr. Witte, it was Mr. Rampersad who decided to leave. Mr. Kontopidis testified that Mr. Rampersad subsequently advised him that he had been demoted to a "prep man," and asked if Mr. Kontopidis felt it was due to the colour of his skin. According to Mr. Kontopidis, both he and Mr. Rampersad felt "50/50" on the question. A meeting was also held between Mr. Witte and Mr. Bishop. The only evidence led concerning this meeting came from Mr. Bishop, who stated that Mr. Witte told him that "Aaron" would be in charge and make the decisions.
13Following the July 17, 1985 meeting between Mr. Witte and Mr. Rampersad, the latter worked only a few more days at Vintage so as to finish up some work. During this period Aaron came to work at the shop as head painter. Aaron had actually been in the shop prior to July 17, 1985 to demonstrate his painting work to Mr. Spagnuolo. According to Mr. Witte, Mr. Spagnuolo had brought Aaron to the shop, but he had approved the hiring of Aaron as head painter after seeing the quality of his work. Aaron did not work out as a head painter. According to Mr. Witte, Aaron worked too slowly and had difficulty managing people. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Carty as well as the white trainee employee all quit following Aaron's arrival. Mr. Bishop testified that he did so because Aaron ordered him around. Mr. Carty testified that he quit because Aaron pushed him around and also because he had not received a raise. According to Mr. Carty, approximately two weeks later he went to the shop to pick up his holiday pay, at which time Mr. Witte asked him to return. Mr. Carty indicated he would do so only if he received a raise, which Mr. Witte agreed to. About the time Mr. Carty returned to the company's employ, so did Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop testified he did so even though in the meantime he had acquired other employment.
14Mr. Witte indicated that he is satisfied with the current head painter "Attila." The evidence is unclear as to how many head painters there were prior to Attila being hired. Mr. Neil Edwards, a human rights officer with the Commission, gave certain hearsay evidence indicating that Aaron had initially been replaced by Norm Sissing, the former head painter. The evidence indicates, however, that there was at least one additional head painter prior to Attila, and perhaps more. When being cross-examined by counsel for the Commission, Mr. Witte gave the following evidence:
Q. But you went through many people before that (the hiring of Attila?)
A. Yes I did.
Q. Most of them were white, were they not?
A. Yes, most of them were white.
15Two weeks after leaving Vintage, Mr. Rampersad commenced working at Auto Cars North, where he is still employed. At Auto Cars North Mr. Rampersad both preps and paints cars. For approximately the first five months of his employment, he received 35 percent of the amount charged to the customer. This was later raised to 55 percent on the understanding that Mr. Rampersad would supply all of the necessary painting materials.
16Counsel for the Commission contends that Vintage breached the Code by not trying Mr. Rampersad in the head painter position. In this regard, she notes that neither Mr. Carty nor Mr. Bishop, both of whom are also black, were placed in the position. Counsel further contends that when faced with a loss of income and prestige occasioned by the company's decision to employ a head painter other than himself, Mr. Rampersad had no option but to leave Vintage and seek alternate employment. For his part, counsel for the company characterizes the decision to employ a head painter, as well as the conclusion that none of the current employees could handle the job, as business decisions free of any improper considerations.
17Apart from Mr. Rampersad's version of his July 17, 1985 discussion with Mr. Witte, there is no direct evidence of a racist attitude on the part of Mr. Witte. There is, however, evidence which indicates that he is not motivated by racist considerations. Mr. Witte's claim that he has managed operations employing people with a variety of backgrounds was not challenged by counsel for the Commission. The racial composition of the work force at Vintage indicates a non-discriminatory approach to hiring. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Carty, two black employees, raised no complaints concerning Mr. Witte. Both of these individuals are currently employees of Vintage, and potentially their evidence may have been influenced by this fact. The same, however, cannot be said for Mr. Tahair, who worked as a supervisor at Vintage for about eight years but no longer does so. Mr. Tahair testified that while at Vintage he encountered no race related problems. Mr. Kontopidis, a former employee who was called as a witness by the Commission, referred to no improper comments on Mr. Witte's part. As to the July 17th discussion between Mr. Witte and Mr. Rampersad, it will be recalled that according to Mr. Witte he told Mr. Rampersad that no one in the shop was qualified to be the head painter. Mr. Rampersad, however, testified that Mr. Witte said that "you kind of people" are not qualified for the job. On this point, I accept the evidence of Mr. Witte as likely being the more accurate. I do so for two reasons. Firstly, the evidence indicates that Mr. Witte had not made other remarks similar to that claimed by Mr. Rampersad. The second reason is the difficulty experienced by Mr. Rampersad in accurately recalling events. While Mr. Rampersad claimed that Mr. Carty and Mr. Bishop had been with him when Mr. Spagnuolo made certain racist comments, both denied that this had been the case. There was also the meeting where Mr. Rampersad claimed that he had commented on Mr. Spagnuolo's racist comments. The evidence of everyone else who was at the meeting, however, was that Mr. Rampersad had not made the comments in question.
18Having regard to the above, I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr. Witte did not make any comments or engage in any overt conduct which would indicate that he was racially motivated. In addition, the evidence of Mr. Witte as to why he decided to revert back to the system of having a head painter was not rebutted. It was a change that had some obvious practical advantages for the management of the company. Accordingly, I am led to conclude that the decision to employ a head painter was a bona fide business decision on the part of Mr. Witte free of any racist motivation or overtones.
19Before leaving the topic of Mr. Witte's conduct, it is appropriate to touch upon certain of his comments and actions during the Commission's investigation into Mr. Rampersad's complaint. Counsel for the Commission contends that Mr. Witte's conduct and comments at the time indicate that he had something to hide. During the Commission's investigation Mr. Witte talked on the telephone with Mr. Edwards, the human rights officer, and met with him once. The meeting occurred only after two postponements caused by Mr. Witte. While Mr. Witte did respond in writing to a summary of Mr. Edwards' investigation, as he was requested to do, he declined to attend a conciliation meeting with Mr. Edwards. Mr. Witte's explanation for his conduct was that the investigation occurred during a trying time for him when he was under a lot of pressure and working long hours. Further, he claimed, he found the complaint to be a nuisance because he felt his conscience was clear. Counsel for the Commission also relies on Mr. Witte's comments to Mr. Edwards concerning the circumstances under which Mr. Rampersad left Vintage's employ. Mr. Edwards testified that on September 9, 1985 he telephoned Mr. Witte concerning a questionnaire Mr. Witte had been asked to fill out. During the ensuing conversation Mr. Witte commented that Mr. Rampersad had been terminated because his work had not been satisfactory, and indeed a car painted by Mr. Rampersad had just been returned because of deficiencies. Mr. Witte invited Mr. Edwards to come to the garage to examine the car in question. Mr. Edwards declined the invitation. Mr. Witte testified that his comments to Mr. Edwards had been made out of frustration occasioned by the return of a car Mr. Rampersad had painted and that the quality of Mr. Rampersad's work had never been an issue. At the subsequent meeting between Mr. Edwards and Mr. Witte, Mr. Witte advised Mr. Edwards that he had decided to make changes in the paint department, and that Mr. Rampersad had viewed the changes as a termination. These differing statements by Mr. Witte to Mr. Edwards cause me some concern. On balance, however, and in light of all of the evidence, I am prepared to accept that Mr. Witte's comments on the telephone reflected only his initial reaction to a car painted by Mr. Rampersad being returned, and did not indicate anything more sinister.
20As indicated above, the evidence taken as a whole suggests that Mr. Witte was not motivated by improper considerations. The evidence also indicates, however, that he had minimal day to day involvement with the paint department. Most of his time appears to have been spent attending to other areas of the business, and in coping with a number of problems facing the firm. Although Mr. Witte took responsibility for the hiring of employees, it is clear that he relied on the recommendations of others. It will be recalled that Mr. Rampersad was hired as a result of Bob Taylor, the then shop manager, recommending him to Mr. Witte. Following Mr. Spagnuolo's promotion, Mr. Spagnuolo played a major role in deciding who should be hired. It will be recalled that Mr. Spagnuolo brought Angelo into the shop. Mr. Spagnuolo also brought Aaron, the head painter, into the shop. Before Aaron was hired Mr. Witte did inspect two cars he had painted. This, however, was apparently after Mr. Spagnuolo had actually watched Aaron paint the cars. One of the difficulties experienced by Aaron was that he worked too slowly. This likely would have become apparent to Mr. Spagnuolo when he watched Aaron paint the cars. Mr. Witte, however, could only have learned of any problems in the regard before hiring Aaron if Mr. Spagnuolo had raised them with him.
21There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Spagnuolo made disparaging remarks about blacks. It is clear that he did not go about constantly making racist comments. Nevertheless, I accept Mr. Kontopidis' testimony that Mr. Spagnuolo advised him that he felt uncomfortable "about them black guys" who, in his view, behaved like pigs. Mr. Kontopidis is not a friend of Mr. Rampersad. He had nothing to gain by coming to the hearing and giving the evidence he did. Further, Mr. Kontopidis' evidence did not suggest that he was motivated by any ill-will towards his former employer. Indeed, he spoke favorably of Mr. Witte and refuted Mr. Rampersad's claim that the latter had complained to Mr. Witte at a meeting of employees concerning comments made by Mr. Spagnuolo.
22As stated above, I am satisfied that the restructuring of the paint department was a business decision made by Mr. Witte untainted by any discriminatory intent. Given the manner by which Mr. Rampersad's wages were determined, the change brought with it a real possibility that his income would drop significantly. Mr. Witte testifed that the person hired to replace Mr. Rampersad is now earning twice as much as Mr. Rampersad did while at Vintage. This does not, however, detract from the fact that at the time in question, the change brought with it the potential for lost income, particularly if Aaron, the then new head painter, decided to do most of the painting work himself.
23When the decision was made to revert to a system utilizing a head painter, there were four employees in Vintage's paint department. Given their work experience, neither Mr. Carty nor the white trainee could be regarded as serious candidates for the job. This left Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rampersad, both of whom are black. There is only limited evidence before me relating to Mr. Bishop's qualifications for the position. The evidence does, however, establish that Mr. Rampersad was a fast worker who generally did an acceptable job. Further, he had worked for a number of years in a supervisory position. Logic suggests that he would have been considered as a candidate for the head painter position. This does not mean that Vintage was foreclosed from considering outside candidates. Nothing in the Code requires an employer to give preference to current employees when filling a senior position. One would, however, generally expect that an outside candidate would be selected because he/she is reasonably believed to be better suited for the job than the current employees. In the instant case, it is clear the company did not initially select someone more qualified than Mr. Rampersad. Aaron, while a good painter, was too slow and lacked the ability to supervise others. Further, the evidence does not suggest that Aaron was hired on the basis of a recommendation from another shop or because he had previously held a similar job elsewhere. Indeed, one is led to conclude that he was hired despite the fact the company knew little about him other than that he did a good job in painting two cars. It is not in the abstract, but rather in light of the selection of Aaron that the decision not to at least try Mr. Rampersad in the head painter position must be assessed. From an objective view point, the decision to by-pass Mr. Rampersad in favour of Aaron appears to have made little sense. In these circumstances, I am led to conclude that it was likely Mr. Spagnuolo's view of blacks and his discomfort in working with them which led him to prefer a white person of relatively unknown ability in favour of Mr. Rampersad. Mr. Spagnuolo brought Aaron into the shop and recommended him to Mr. Witte. By agreeing to hire Aaron as the head painter, Mr. Witte implemented, albeit unknowingly, a recommendation based on improper and unlawful considerations.
24In that Mr. Witte's conduct was not motivated by any unlawful considerations, the complaint against him in his personal capacity must be dismissed. However, because Mr. Spagnuolo's decision to recommend Aaron over Mr. Rampersad for the head painter position was due to the latter's colour, the complaint against him succeeds. Earlier in this decision I concluded that Mr. Spagnuolo exercised managerial functions on behalf of Vintage. Given this conclusion, as well as the fact that Mr. Spagnuolo's tainted recommendation was implemented by more senior management, the complaint against Vintage must also succeed. Mr. Rampersad left the employ of Vintage due to the potential loss of income associated with the introduction of a head painter other than himself. Accordingly, his leaving was a direct result of the company's unlawful conduct in choosing Aaron over himself for the head painter position.
25Mr. Rampersad is entitled to damages for the two week period prior to when he found alternative employment. Counsel for the Commission places the amount at $1,441.36, which I believe to be a reasonable estimate of his losses. Counsel for the Commission also seeks an amount to compensate Mr. Rampersad for an alleged loss of income during his first five months of employment at Auto Cars North. At Vintage Mr. Rampersad received 40 percent of the amount charged the customer, while at Auto Cars North he initially received 35 percent until the amount was raised to 55 percent in conjunction with certain other related changes. Counsel contends that the difference between the 35 percent received at Auto Cars North and the 40 percent received at Vintage represented a loss of income of $1,813.60 to Mr. Rampersad. A difficulty with this contention is that Mr. Rampersad's income at Auto Cars North would have depended on a number of factors other than the percentage figure being utilized, including the costs charged to customers by the two firms, about which there is no evidence. Mr. Rampersad was in an excellent position to compare in detail his earnings at Auto Cars North with those he received at Vintage. When counsel for the Commission asked him to compare his earnings at the two locations, however, Mr. Rampersad replied only "well, I was making a little less." This response suggests that the difference was considerably less than the amount suggested by Commission counsel. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the evidence justifies an increase to the estimate of Mr. Rampersad's losses set out above. I do, however, feel it appropriate to award Mr. Rampersad $500.00 as general damages to compensate him for the discrimination he suffered. I also agree with the Commission that interest should be paid on the total owed from mid-August 1985 when the complaint was served on the respondents. I propose to calculate the interest using the Bank of Canada prime rate for August 1985, which was 10.25 percent. For the approximately one year and ten months since that time, the interest totals $364.80.
26Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that Mr. Spagnuolo left the employ of Vintage subsequent to the events described above, there appears to be no need for an order designed to ensure on-going compliance with the Code on the part of Vintage.
27Having regard to all of the above, I now make the order set out below:
Order
28This Board of Inquiry, following a hearing into the complaint of Rabindranath Rampersad, has found Vince Spagnuolo and 547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, to be in breach of section 4(1) and section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O., c.53 as amended.
29It is ordered that:
(1) The complaint against Jack Witte be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
(2) Vince Spagnuolo and 547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, jointly and severably pay to Rabindranath Rampersad the sum of $1,441.36 as damages for lost wages; and
(3) Vince Spagnuolo and 547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, jointly and severably pay to Rabindranath Rampersad the sum of $500.00 as general damages resulting from their unlawful conduct; and
(4) Vince Spagnuolo and 547440 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Vintage Grand Touring Automotives, jointly and severably pay to Rabindranath Rampersad the sum of $364.80 as interest up to June 30, 1987.