HRTO 1994

The complainant, an aerobics instructor, was terminated from her employment at the respondent ballet school shortly after informing the directors that she was pregnant.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to her refusal to modify her program and sign a legal waiver absolving the school of liability.

The Board of Inquiry found that the termination was a direct result of her pregnancy, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded special damages for lost wages and general damages for embarrassment and mental anguish.

Following a preliminary decision that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to hear the human rights complaints due to the Commission's failure to fulfill a condition precedent, the respondent Four Star Variety brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The majority of the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs because the complaints were not 'dismissed' within the strict meaning of the Code.

The motion for costs was denied.

A dissenting member would have found jurisdiction to award costs but denied them on the basis that the respondent suffered no undue hardship, as its legal fees were paid by a third party.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay a human rights complaint, arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to make sufficient efforts to settle the complaint, and that delay, inadequate disclosure, and biased investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Commission did make efforts to settle and held that, in any event, failure to conciliate is not a condition precedent to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also found that while there was considerable delay, it did not render a fair hearing impossible.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a coffee server, alleged that her employer sexually harassed her and discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

The respondent asked the complainant for a date and, upon learning she was a lesbian, persistently questioned her about her sexual preferences and attempted to persuade her to have a heterosexual relationship with him.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's conduct constituted both sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Human Rights Code.

Applying the Torres criteria, the Board awarded the complainant $1,500 in general damages, noting the harassment was entirely verbal and of short duration.

The complainant, a senior operator in a safety-sensitive position, alleged discrimination based on handicap under the respondent's Alcohol and Drug Policy after disclosing a past alcohol problem.

The respondent sought a preliminary ruling to limit the Board of Inquiry's jurisdiction to the policy's specific effects on the complainant, rather than the policy as a whole.

The Board declined to make a definitive ruling on the scope of the proceeding at the outset, finding it premature and stating that the relevance of evidence regarding the broader policy would be determined as the hearing unfolded.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a complaint of pregnancy discrimination against the Office of the Legislative Assembly to include an allegation of sexual harassment.

The respondents objected, arguing the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to amend the complaint and that doing so would be an abuse of process.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to determine whether a right was infringed, and that the new allegation arose from the same facts.

The Board also dismissed the respondents' motions to remove the Speaker of the House and the Board of Internal Economy as named respondents, and to dismiss the sick leave issues as moot.

The respondents, the Corporation of the City of Hamilton and Mayor Robert Morrow, brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the refusal to proclaim Gay and Lesbian Pride Week.

The City argued the Commission failed to attempt settlement with it and that it was not a proper party.

The Mayor argued the complaint was barred by the six-month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all motions, finding that the Commission attempted settlement in good faith, that it was premature to dismiss the City as a party without a hearing, and that the complaint was filed within the limitation period.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, who continuously proposed marriage, touched her inappropriately, and changed her hours of work after she rejected his advances.

After she filed a human rights complaint, the employer sent her a threatening card with play money, which she perceived as a threat to her life.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct constituted sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant special damages for lost wages and a missed bonus, general damages for mental anguish, and ordered the employer to attend human rights training.

The complainant, a tenant of Cambodian ancestry, alleged that her landlord discriminated against her and other Asian tenants by failing to maintain their apartment building and by making racial slurs.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the living conditions were deplorable, they affected all tenants regardless of race and therefore did not constitute unequal treatment under section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Board found that the landlord engaged in unlawful reprisal under section 8 of the Code by cutting off the complainant's electricity, illegally raising her rent, and issuing an eviction notice after she filed her human rights complaint.

The landlord was ordered to pay $2,500 in general and punitive damages.

The complainant, a Black woman, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race when he refused to rent her a basement apartment.

After the complainant was treated dismissively by the respondent, her white roommate viewed the same apartment and was enthusiastically offered the unit.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent's stated reasons for the differing treatment were pretextual and that his assumption that the complainant would be noisy and financially unstable was based on racial stereotypes.

The Board concluded that the respondent infringed the complainant's right to equal treatment in accommodation under the Human Rights Code and awarded $4,300 in damages.

The complainant, a black cashier, alleged she was racially harassed and subsequently terminated because of her race.

The Board of Inquiry found that the store manager engaged in unconscious discriminatory behaviour, including mimicking accents and making racially insensitive jokes, which created a poisoned work environment.

However, the Board concluded that the complainant's termination was due to insubordination, not race.

The complaint regarding termination was dismissed, but the complaint of racial harassment was upheld.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $3,000 in general damages and institute a training program for its managers.

The complainant, who was born with a shorter and weaker left arm and a left hand with four digits, was hired as a general labourer and assigned to work as a coil tester.

After working for about an hour, the employer sent him home due to safety concerns and subsequently terminated his employment, assuming he could not safely perform the job.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of handicap.

The employer failed to establish a defence under section 17 of the Human Rights Code because it took no steps to assess the complainant's actual capabilities or to determine if he could be accommodated without undue hardship.

Expert evidence demonstrated that the complainant was fully capable of performing the essential duties of the job.

The Board awarded the complainant $957.60 for lost wages, $4,000 in general damages for humiliation, interest, and ordered the employer to provide human rights training for its management.

The complainant, a single mother receiving social assistance, alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her by refusing her rental application because she was on welfare.

The respondent claimed the application was incomplete because it lacked a start date.

The Board of Inquiry accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that the respondent explicitly stated he would not rent to someone on mothers' allowance.

The Board concluded that the respondent violated section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code and ordered him to pay $2,000 in general damages and implement a non-discrimination policy.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

They argued the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Commission failed to locate and attempt settlement with two individual respondents, and alternatively that proceeding would be an abuse of process due to delay.

The Board held that the Commission's failure to locate a respondent does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss for delay was denied for the corporate respondent and two individuals as no actual prejudice was shown.

However, the proceedings were terminated against one individual respondent who had no notice of the complaint until the day before the hearing, as the complete loss of opportunity to participate in the investigation and settlement stages constituted an abuse of process.

The complainants, two gay men in long-term same-sex relationships, alleged that the Ministry of Transportation discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation by requiring them to obtain and pay for a safety standards certificate when transferring vehicle ownership to or from their partners.

Opposite-sex spouses were exempt from this requirement.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ministry's actions constituted discrimination in the provision of services based on sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Ministry to compensate the complainants and to cease its practice of automatically excluding same-sex couples from the spousal exemption.

The complainant, a store manager, was terminated from her employment after taking a several-month medical leave for deep vein thrombosis.

She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap and reprisal.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that deep vein thrombosis is a temporary illness and does not constitute a handicap within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board also found that the respondents did not discriminate based on a perceived handicap, as a temporary illness cannot be perceived as a handicap under the Code.

The reprisal allegation was also dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The complainant, a francophone and gay man, alleged discrimination and harassment in accommodation by his landlord and the landlord's agents.

The Board of Inquiry found that the apartment manager's refusal to accept a rent cheque written in French constituted discrimination based on ancestry under s. 2(1) of the Human Rights Code, and awarded $300 in damages.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations of harassment based on sexual orientation, concluding that sexual orientation was not a prohibited ground for harassment under s. 2(2) of the Code at the time, and could not be read into the provision.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought production of documents relating to the respondent's Alcohol and Drug Policy as a whole, while the respondent argued for a phased approach focusing first on the individual complainant.

The Board of Inquiry adopted a phased approach, ordering production of documents relating only to the individual complainant at this stage.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association sought intervener status as amicus curiae.

The Board granted the CCLA intervener status to make submissions at the conclusion of the case, noting the public interest nature of human rights inquiries.

The complainant, an Orthodox Jew, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed when her employer required her to seek weekly approval to leave work early on Fridays during the winter to observe the Sabbath.

The employer had previously allowed her to use accumulated overtime to leave early.

When a new supervisor required formal approval and scheduled a meeting to discuss her needs, the complainant became upset and failed to adequately communicate the specific time requirements for her religious observances, such as candle lighting.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer took reasonable steps to accommodate and communicate, but the complainant failed in her duty to facilitate the accommodation by not explaining her needs.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing that the 31-month delay in proceeding with a sexual harassment complaint violated his rights under ss. 7 and 11 of the Charter.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that s. 11 does not apply because human rights proceedings are not criminal in nature.

The Board also held that s. 7 does not apply to remedial proceedings under the Human Rights Code, as they do not involve the potential for incarceration or criminal sanction and do not affect security of the person.