HRTO 1993

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

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.

The complainant, a single mother receiving Mother's Allowance, signed a lease for an apartment and provided a post-dated cheque.

The property management company returned the cheque, stating they did not accept post-dated cheques and would not accept applications from persons on Mother's Allowance unless their caseworker ensured direct payment of rent.

The complainant subsequently died, and her executrix continued the human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry found that the direct payment requirement was a flagrant and willful discrimination based on the receipt of public assistance, contrary to section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,750 in special damages and $2,500 in general damages, and to cease requiring direct payment of rent from persons receiving public assistance.

Two 15-year-old waitresses filed human rights complaints alleging sexual harassment by their employer, the owner of a truck stop.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer subjected the complainants to repeated sexual touching, comments, and solicitations, and on one occasion played a pornographic movie in their presence.

This conduct created a poisoned work environment and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The Board awarded special damages for lost wages and general damages for mental anguish, noting the vulnerability of the young complainants.

The employer was also ordered to report future hirings of female employees to the Commission.

The complainant, a woman trained as an industrial mechanic, applied for a millwright apprentice position with the respondent.

She was told the job was unsuitable for a woman due to lack of facilities and potential discontent among male workers' wives.

The Board of Inquiry found that while no position was actually available at the time, the respondent discriminated against the complainant in the hiring process based on stereotypical attitudes about women in non-traditional occupations.

The Board awarded $3,000 in damages for humiliation and ordered the respondent to implement non-discriminatory hiring practices.

The complainant alleged sexual harassment and sexual solicitation by the owner of the respondent cleaning company.

The Board of Inquiry found that the owner engaged in a course of vexatious physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature, creating a poisoned work environment that caused the complainant to quit.

While the Board dismissed the allegation of sexual solicitation, finding the owner's conduct amounted to inappropriate joking rather than genuine advances, it upheld the sexual harassment complaint.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,500 in general damages for mental anguish and infringement of rights, and $2,700 in special damages for eight weeks of lost wages.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

The complainant, a single mother, responded to an advertisement for a basement apartment.

When she arrived to view the apartment with her three-year-old child, the respondents refused to rent to her because they did not want a child living in the home.

The respondents later offered to rent the apartment if the complainant paid an additional $70 per month for utilities, which she refused.

The Board of Inquiry found that the initial refusal constituted prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to establish that the apartment was unsafe for a child or that the shared facilities exception applied.

The Board dismissed the claim for special damages but awarded $2,000 in general damages for mental suffering.

The respondents, the Ontario Hospital Association and Gord Cunningham, brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights complaint against them, arguing that the agreed statement of facts showed they did not administer the employee benefits plan at issue.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued it was premature to dismiss the complaint before hearing evidence.

The Board of Inquiry declined to dismiss the complaint, noting that the Commission might have other evidence implicating the respondents.

However, the Board found it would be an abuse of process to proceed without the respondents knowing the case against them, and ordered the Commission to provide appropriate disclosure within thirty days.

The Commission moved to amend a human rights complaint to add a reference to section 11 of the Human Rights Code, which deals with constructive discrimination.

The respondents objected, arguing that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to amend the complaint to include what they characterized as an entirely new, uninvestigated complaint.

The Board of Inquiry allowed the amendment, finding that section 11 does not create a separate ground of discrimination but rather stipulates a way in which a right may be infringed.

The amendment merely provided notice of the Commission's intention to argue that the respondents' facially neutral transfer procedures had an adverse discriminatory effect on the complainant.

The complainant, who has a disability resulting from a head injury that causes a limp and slurred speech, was refused service at an LCBO store because employees perceived him to be intoxicated.

The Board of Inquiry found that the refusal did not constitute direct discrimination, as the complainant failed to clarify his condition when given the opportunity.

However, the Board found that the LCBO's application of the Liquor Licence Act prohibition against serving intoxicated persons constituted constructive (adverse effect) discrimination against persons with disabilities whose symptoms mimic intoxication.

The LCBO failed to establish a defence under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code because it lacked adequate training programs to accommodate such persons.

The Board declined to award general damages due to the complainant's conduct but recommended the LCBO improve its training.

The complainant, a 46-year-old married woman with children, applied for a permanent clerk/stenographer position with the Ontario Provincial Police.

During her interviews, she was asked improper questions regarding her age, marital status, and family status.

She was ultimately not hired after failing technical tests, and a younger, single woman was hired instead.

The Board of Inquiry found that the interview questions violated the Human Rights Code and awarded $2,000 in damages.

However, the Board dismissed the claim that the failure to hire was discriminatory, finding that the decision was based on the complainant's failure to pass the required technical tests rather than her age, marital status, or family status.

The complainants applied to be firefighters with the City of Ottawa but were rejected because they did not meet the uncorrected visual acuity standard of 20/20 in each eye.

They filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination based on handicap.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the complainants' impaired visual acuity did not constitute a 'handicap' under s. 9(b)(i) of the Human Rights Code because there was no evidence it was caused by bodily injury, illness, or birth defect.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.

The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.

The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The complainant, an Ojibway man, alleged that a hotel discriminated against him based on his race and ancestry by demanding a $100 deposit and assigning him to an inferior room.

The Board of Inquiry found that the deposit claim was abandoned, but the room assignment constituted discrimination.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including statistical data of room assignments and testimony from a police officer about 'native rooms', the Board concluded that the hotel had a practice of steering native customers to inferior rooms.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $2,500 in compensatory damages for the injury to the complainant's dignity.

The complainant, the first female supervisor on the plant floor at De Havilland, alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment.

She named her employer and two union committeemen as respondents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints against the individual committeemen, finding their conduct, while confrontational and profane, was largely directed at her aggressive supervisory style rather than her gender.

However, the Board found the employer liable for failing to take adequate steps to prevent and address the broader pattern of harassment she faced from other employees, which included obscene phone calls, pornographic materials, and vandalism.

The employer was ordered to pay $1,000 in general damages for mental anguish.

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 devout Catholic, worked as a bartender and was not required to work on Sundays.

A new owner took over the business and scheduled the complainant to work on Sundays.

When the complainant refused due to his religious convictions, his employment was terminated.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of creed and failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The complainant was awarded $7,250 for lost wages, $4,000 for mental anguish, and $4,000 in punitive damages.

The complainant alleged that her employer sexually harassed her, made sexual solicitations, and terminated her employment in reprisal for rejecting his advances.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by witnesses, while rejecting the respondent's denials and attacks on the complainant's character.

The Board concluded that the respondent violated the Human Rights Code by sexually harassing the complainant, subjecting her to sexual solicitation, and firing her in reprisal.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 for lost wages and $3,500 for general damages.

The complainant was hired as a medical secretary but was dismissed after two and a half days when the respondent doctor concluded she suffered from grand mal seizures due to her epilepsy.

The respondent believed she would be unable to handle emergency situations.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to determine the complainant's actual medical condition, which involved only simple partial seizures that did not affect her work.

The respondent could not rely on the bona fide occupational qualification defence under section 17 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay $1,080 in special damages and $2,000 in general damages for the wilful infringement of the complainant's rights.