HRTO 1991

The complainant, a waitress at a strip bar, was fired by the manager when she was four months pregnant.

The manager admitted to firing her because of her pregnancy, citing concerns about fights breaking out and potential lawsuits if she were injured.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was fired because of her pregnancy, violating the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to establish that not being pregnant was a bona fide occupational qualification for the job.

The manager and the corporate respondent were found jointly and severally liable for the discrimination, and were ordered to pay special and general damages.

The respondent dentist in a human rights complaint requested the production of the complainant's complete medical and psychiatric records.

The complainant alleged he was refused dental treatment because he is HIV-positive.

The respondent argued the records were necessary to assess the complainant's credibility regarding a health questionnaire and to explore stereotypical assumptions about the psychiatric profile of persons with AIDS.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the request, finding the complete records were not relevant and that the moral presumption of confidentiality required keeping disclosure to a minimum.

The complainant's voluntary undertaking to provide specific medical confirmation was deemed sufficient.

The complainant, a young woman with cerebral palsy, rented a basement apartment from the respondent.

The respondent landlord engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including calling the complainant a 'retard', turning off lights while she was on the stairs, and issuing an illegal eviction notice, because the complainant did not conform to the landlord's expectations of how a handicapped person should behave.

The Board of Inquiry found that the landlord harassed the complainant because of her handicap contrary to s. 2(2) of the Human Rights Code, and ordered the landlord to pay special and general damages.

The respondent company, Domglas Inc., brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the hearing of a human rights complaint against it pending the outcome of an application to the Divisional Court to quash the appointment of the Board of Inquiry.

The respondent argued that a six-year delay by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in processing the complaint violated its rights under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter and the rules of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Charter provisions did not apply to the corporate respondent or to the nature of the complaint (discrimination based on handicap), and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the hearing in the public interest.

The complainant, a teacher at a private Christian school, was dismissed after the school learned she was living in a common-law relationship.

She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on marital status.

The Board of Inquiry found that while her dismissal constituted prima facie discrimination based on marital status, the school was protected by the bona fide occupational qualification exception for religious organizations under s. 23(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The school established that its requirement for teachers to adhere to Christian moral precepts, including not living in a common-law relationship, was a reasonable and bona fide qualification given the nature of the employment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a bartender with epilepsy, experienced a seizure at work.

Approximately five weeks later, his employment was terminated.

The employer claimed the termination was due to the complainant's failure to provide a medical letter, but the Board found this explanation lacked credibility and concluded the complainant was fired because the employer believed his epilepsy made him unsuitable for the job.

The Board held that the complainant was capable of performing his duties safely and effectively, and that his dismissal was based on stereotypical assumptions about his handicap.

The respondents were found to have discriminated against the complainant contrary to the Human Rights Code and were ordered to pay special damages for lost wages and general damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The complainant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation discriminated against a halfway house for ex-psychiatric patients by seeking an injunction to enforce a declaration restricting occupancy to single families.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the respondent did not commit direct discrimination by seeking legal clarification in court, the declaration's single-family restriction constituted constructive discrimination against persons with mental disabilities requiring supportive housing.

The Board ordered the offending provisions to be read down to permit group homes for ex-psychiatric patients.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a complaint on behalf of Carolyn Maddox, a shoe salesperson who was told by her employer to lose 35 pounds or face termination.

Ms. Maddox left her employment and subsequently died in a car accident before the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed preliminary motions to stay the proceedings due to delay and the complainant's death, admitting her discovery transcript from a related civil action.

On the merits, the Board held that obesity is not a 'handicap' under the Human Rights Code unless it is an ongoing condition caused by illness that limits physical capabilities.

The Board also dismissed the claim of sex discrimination, finding insufficient evidence that the employer's weight requirement was directed at the complainant because she was a woman.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.

The respondents in a sexual harassment complaint brought two preliminary motions before the Board of Inquiry.

The first motion sought a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied to prevent further delay.

The second motion sought greater particulars, full witness statements, witness names, and an adjournment.

The Board ordered the Commission to provide a more precise statement of the allegations within five days but denied the request for witness statements and names, finding them privileged and beyond the Board's power to order as discovery.

The request for an adjournment was also denied.

The complainant alleged she was evicted from her apartment because she was pregnant and unmarried.

The respondents claimed she was evicted due to noisy parties, problematic roommates, and police visits.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's evidence more credible and concluded that her pregnancy and family status were motivating factors for the eviction.

The respondents were ordered to pay moving expenses, rent differential, and $1,000 in general damages for mental anguish and loss of dignity.

The complainant alleged racial discrimination in employment against the East York Board of Education and individual respondents.

During the hearing, the complainant engaged in disruptive conduct and refused to provide an undertaking to the Board of Inquiry that he would answer questions directly and cease making derogatory comments.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the hearing could not proceed in an orderly manner and dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The respondents then sought costs under s. 40(6) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found that the respondents suffered undue hardship and ordered the Ontario Human Rights Commission to pay solicitor-client costs of $108,230.42, plus $10,027.60 for time spent by one of the respondents preparing for the hearing.

The complainant alleged age discrimination against his employer and union because a pre-retirement vacation provision in the collective agreement granted extra vacation time only to employees aged 61 and over with 25 years of service.

The complainant had the required service but was not 61.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the provision constituted direct age discrimination, it was protected under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Code as a special program designed to relieve the hardship older workers face when transitioning to retirement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondent insurance company brought preliminary motions seeking an order to prevent the Commission from initiating complaints against other insurers, to grant use immunity to witnesses, and to add the complainant's employer as a respondent.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the first two motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction to restrict the Commission's statutory duties and that witness immunity could only be determined at a subsequent proceeding.

The Board granted the motion to add the employer as a respondent, finding that the employer could not escape responsibility for the terms of the employee benefit plan.

The complainant, a Filipino veterinarian, alleged that he was denied a promotion to a management position at the Humane Society because of his race and small physical stature.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the manager regularly used racial slurs and tolerated a prejudiced work environment, the decision not to promote the complainant was based on his lack of 'on the road' law enforcement experience compared to the successful candidate.

The complaint was dismissed, but the Board recommended workplace education on the Human Rights Code.