Anishinabie v. Near New Store (No. 2)

1996-09-27

Ontario Board of Inquiry

CHRR Doc. 97-069

Angie Anishinabie and Ontario Human Rights Commission Complainants

v.

Near New Store, Gordon Henderson and William Otway Respondents

Date of Complaint: June 6, 1992

Date of Decision: September 27, 1996

Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, H.A Bassford

Decision No.: 96-032

Appearances by: William Holder, Counsel for the Commission Angie Anishinabie, on her own behalf William Otway, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Respondent Near New Store Gordon Henderson, on his own behalf

RACE, COLOUR AND PLACE OF ORIGIN — commercial enterprise service denied — SEXUAL HARASSMENT — sexual advances by store owner — RETALIATION — harassment and intimidation following filing of human rights complaint — EVIDENCE — intimidation of witness — PARTIES — adding respondents — REMEDY — notice to human rights commission of any new business and if respondent changes province of residence

Summary: A Board of Inquiry finds that Gordon Henderson and the Near New Store discriminated against Angie Anishinabie with respect to services customarily available to the public because she is a woman of Indian ancestry.

Ms. Anishinabie went to the Near New Store in Thunder Bay, Ontario in April 1992 looking for a second-hand box spring. She was first told by Gordon Henderson, one of the owners, that he did not have any box springs. When Ms. Anishinabie said that she had been in to the store a few days before and had been told that they did have some, Mr. Henderson took her downstairs to look at them. He told her they would cost "fifty bucks". On the way upstairs, Mr. Henderson twice slapped Ms. Anishinabie on the buttocks. She told him not to. When he asked her whether she was going to buy the box springs, she said no and left the store feeling very uncomfortable.

Ms. Anishinabie filed a human rights complaint. During the investigation, Gordon Henderson made derogatory and vulgar comments about Indians and Indian women, threatened Ms. Anishinabie that "someone would pay", talked about beating up Indians, and threatened the investigating officers from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Ms. Anishinabie became so frightened that she entered a women's shelter.

The Board of Inquiry finds that Mr. Henderson discriminated against Ms. Anishinabie because of her sex and her ancestry. It also finds that Mr. Henderson retaliated against her for filing the complaint by making threats and behaving in an intimidating manner during the course of the investigation.

The Board of Inquiry orders the respondents to inform the Ontario Human Rights Commission of any business which they operate in Ontario in order to obtain cards regarding the Ontario Human Rights Code which can be displayed prominently in their place of business. It also orders Gordon Henderson to inform the Ontario Human Rights Commission if he moves his place of residence from the Province of Ontario, and to refrain from contacting Ms. Anishinabie or any of the witnesses to the complaint.

In addition, the Board of Inquiry orders the respondents to pay Ms. Anishinabie $1,000 as compensation for the discrimination, and orders Gordon Henderson personally to pay her $3,000 as compensation for the reprisals against her, and $2,000 as compensation for the mental anguish caused by this conduct.

[Ed. Note: See also (No. 1) (1995), C.H.R.R. NP/95-62 (Ont. Bd.Inq.).]

Cases Cited

Anishinabie v. Near New Store (No. 1) (1995), C.H.R.R. NP/95-62 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 2

Cousens v. Canadian Nurses Assn. (1981), 1981 CanLII 4331 (ON HRT), 2 C.H.R.R. D/365 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 6

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (No. 3) (1994), 1994 CanLII 18413 (ON HRT), 23 C.H.R.R. D/186 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 6

Legislation Cited

Ontario

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43: 46, 49, 50

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10

s. 1: 1, 28, 33, 41, 45, 51

s. 8: 4, 7, 34, 40, 48, 51

s. 9: 1, 28, 33, 41

s. 41: 42

s. 41(1)(a): 43

s. 41(1)(b): 43

Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5

s. 11: 9

s. 13: 9

Authorities Cited

Meagher, Arthur & Ronald Meagher, Parties to an Action (Toronto: Butterworths, 1988): 10

1I was appointed on March 8, 1995, by the Minister of Citizenship, the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, to form a board of inquiry pursuant to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10 as amended, to hear and decide the matter of the complaint dated June 6, 1992, made by Angie Anishinabie against the Near New Store and Gordon Henderson. The complaint alleges that Mr. Henderson infringed Ms. Anishinabie's right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of her sex, race and ancestry, in contravention of ss. 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

2The hearing into this matter commenced by conference call on April 4, 1995. There were six additional hearing days, three of which were by conference call. An Interim Decision was issued on June 16, 1995 [C.H.R.R. NP/95-62]. The in-person hearing days took place July 24 through 26 in Thunder Bay. The hearing was adjourned on July 26, 1995, but on successful motion of the Human Rights Commission was re-opened to hear additional evidence. Subsequent to that hearing date Mr. William Otway, who was Mr. Henderson's partner in the Near New Store, served notice that he would be making a motion to the Board to have the case re-opened in order for him to make a statement. Mr. Otway became seriously ill and was granted time to make his motion. In the end he did not proceed with the motion, so I am now proceeding to issue a decision.

3The personal respondent in this matter, Mr. Gordon Henderson, appeared only at the first conference call and for a few minutes at the July 24 hearing date. I informed him that the hearing would continue in his absence. He was notified of all subsequent hearing dates. He was not represented. Mr. William Otway appeared as a partner in the Near New Store. He was not represented, and did not present evidence. While he did ask a few questions of Ms. Anishinabie in cross-examination, he did not question any of the evidence she presented in direct testimony. Accordingly, the evidence led by counsel for the Commission has stood as uncontested and uncontradicted.

PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

First Preliminary Motion

4Counsel for the Commission, Mr. William Holder, presented two preliminary motions. The first motion requested the Board to order an amendment to the complaint to include an allegation of reprisal contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. This motion arose because two days after the case conference the complainant, Ms. Anishinabie, received an anonymous letter which was offensive and intimidating. The Commission proposed to show that this letter was sent by Mr. Henderson, and that this would constitute reprisal under s. 8 of the Code.

5The motion was granted, and the complaint amended so as to include an allegation of reprisal. My reasoning is as follows. There are two questions which need to be addressed in deciding the motion: first, is the amendment within the competency of this panel; second, if it is, is there reason to so amend the complaint?

6With respect to the first question, it is now well established that the board of inquiry has the power to amend the grounds of contravention specified in a complaint. As Mr. Holder pointed out, this was well-articulated by Mr. Ratushny in Cousens v. Canadian Nurses Assn.(1981), 1981 CanLII 4331 (ON HRT), 2 C.H.R.R. D/365 (Ont. Bd.Inq.). Further, I agree with Professor Backhouse that in the case of alleged reprisals it is particularly appropriate for a panel to invoke its power to amend (Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (Oct. 21, 1994), (Ont. Bd.Inq., unreported [now reported 1994 CanLII 18413 (ON HRT), 23 C.H.R.R. D/186])). I quote from p. 5 [D/187, para. 9]:

Insofar as reprisals are intended to intimidate or coerce complainants from seeking to enforce their rights under the Code, this would thwart the integrity of the initial proceedings, and make a mockery of the Code's obvious intent to safeguard complainants from adverse consequences for claiming protection under the Code. The allegations of reprisals should be dealt with in the context of the original complaint ...

7The second question is whether there is reason to amend in the present case. Mr. Holder presented a letter received by Ms. Anishinabie two days after the case conference. The Commission alleges that this letter was sent by Mr. Henderson as retaliation. It is clear to me from a perusal of the letter that if it were shown that Mr. Henderson were responsible for the letter then there would be reprisal or threat of reprisal under s. 8 of the Code. Accordingly, the complaint should be amended so as to include an allegation of reprisal.

Second Preliminary Motion

8The second motion was for an order amending the complaint to name William Otway as a party respondent, and amending the style of cause to read as "Angie Anishinabie v. Gordon Henderson and Bill Otway carrying on business under the firm name of the Near New Store".

9Mr. Holder requested this action because he believed the firm called the Near New Store had been dissolved, and thought it prudent to name the partners in the enterprise in their personal names, rather than pursuing an unregistered and now dissolved entity. Mr. Holder argued that as a partner in the Near New Store, Mr. Otway had been liable for any wrongs committed by Mr. Henderson in the course of business at the Near New Store since the time Mr. Otway became a partner. As Mr. Holder pointed out, this is confirmed by ss. 11 and 13 of the Partnerships Act [R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5]. Mr. Holder then submitted that Mr. Otway was liable whether or not I allowed his personal name in the complaint. Based on this it was submitted that there would be no conceivable prejudice to a partner in having his personal name attached.

10The motion was denied. After consideration I decided not to exercise my discretion and not to add Mr. Otway as a personal respondent. The basis for this decision is as follows. There was no information presented that Mr. Otway was alleged to be responsible for any violation of the Code because of any personal actions on his part. Accordingly, any liability of Mr. Otway would arise solely because of his partnership in the Near New Store at the time of the alleged infringement of the Code. And, as Arthur Meagher and Ronald Meagher state in Parties to an Action (Butterworths, Toronto, 1988), p. 389 "... the courts look to the partners composing the firm at the time the cause of action accrued". I conclude that any liability arising from Mr. Otway's partnership would not be changed after the dissolution of the partnership, and that there is not sufficient reason to name him as personal respondent.

FACTS

A. Original Incident

11The Near New Store was located at 211 Simpson Street in Thunder Bay and was licensed to deal in second hand goods. From January 1, 1992, onward it was owned and operated by Mr. Gordon Henderson and Mr. Bill Otway. The store ceased operating sometime in 1995, with the unregistered partnership being formally dissolved on July 1, 1995.

12On or about April 23, 1992, Ms. Anishinabie went to the Near New Store, looking for a second-hand box spring. The person in the store went to the basement to check, but did not know the price. He asked Ms. Anishinabie to come back later, and ask the co-owner.

13She returned a couple of days later, on or about April 25. At that time she asked Mr. Henderson, "Do you have any box springs?" He replied, "No, we don't have any," and made a dismissive move with his hand. Ms. Anishinabie told him that she had been told by another salesperson to come back, and that there were box springs downstairs. In response Mr. Henderson invited her downstairs. She asked him how much they were, and he said, "50 bucks".

14On the way up the stairs Mr. Henderson twice slapped Ms. Anishinabie on the buttocks. In her words,

Well, it was when he slapped my butt on the way upstairs then I told him to "Don't". I looked back, I said "Quit it, don't". I even pointed my finger at him. And then he slapped my butt again on the way up and he asked me "Are you going to buy it?" And then I felt really uncomfortable and frustrated by his action, his behaviour, and I just said "NO".

Ms. Anishinabie then walked out of the store feeling very uncomfortable.

15Circumstantial evidence was presented as relevant to the question of Mr. Henderson's state of mind at the time of the alleged discriminatory act. This can be found in the Respondent Questionnaire (Exhibit 10), in the testimony of Linda Britt, the initial investigating officer for the Human Rights Commission in the instant case, and in the testimony of Daniel Welch, Manager of the Northern Region of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

16In the Respondent Questionnaire, Mr. Henderson stated in part,

I have more women than I can deal with, and if I have to slap some Indian's butt, it will be in their dreams only ... If I had any bodily contact with said native squaw, it would have been to clear her out of my way to deal with other paying customers ...

17Ms. Britt testified with respect to several conversations with Mr. Henderson.

18On September 15, 1993, Mr. Henderson called to complaint about "an Indian" who entered his store and called him a "dirty white rip off" (Transcript, v. 2, pp. 70–71). Mr. Henderson talked of "beating the crap out of" that person, and said, "This is the second time I've had the pleasure of beating up a fuckin' Indian." Mr. Henderson said it was Ms. Britt's fault he did not have any more Indian customers, and said, "I don't want fuckin' Indians in here anyway."

19On October 20, 1993, Mr. Welch had a conversation with Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson said that "a couple of Indian boys had called him a white assed rip off artist", that he was going to file a complaint with the Commission. "but he took care of them in his own way" and wasn't going to file (Transcript, v. 2, p. 91). He said "that he can't keep beating up these Indians, as much as he enjoys it", and further said "that he's had it with these jigaboos up and down the street ripping off and abusing the system".

B. Threat of Reprisal

1. Conduct During Hearing

20Mr. Henderson behaved in a loud and intimidating manner throughout his appearances during this inquiry. At the initial conference call he used profane language, and several times interrupted the chair and the other participants in the call. Before he hung up, he said, "Someone will pay".

21A case conference was held on June 6, 1996, in Thunder Bay. At this conference Mr. Henderson was "very vocal" towards Ms. Anishinabie, and his manner was such that she feared he might jump over to where she was sitting (Transcript, v. 2, pp. 38–39). At the conclusion of the case conference, she, along with Mr. Holder and Ms. Lina Bava, the investigating officer for the Human Rights Commission, went to the police and obtained an order requiring Mr. Henderson not to trespass. That night she went into Beendigen, a women's crisis home in Thunder Bay.

22During the hearing date of July 24,1995, Mr. Henderson interrupted the chair several times. He referred to Mr. Holder as "buddy" and "baldy". When Mr. Holder attempted to present him with the Commission's Book of Authorities, he pushed it off the table and hit Mr. Holder with it. When asked by Mr. Holder if he had received a letter, he replied, "Yes, I have information about this alleged letter that one of her drunken goose pimping boyfriends must have sent her" (Transcript, v. 1, p. 7). When he walked from the hearing, he said to Ms. Anishinabie, "I hope whoever wrote you the letter gets a hold of you too" (Transcript, v. 1, p. 12).

2. Conduct During Investigation

23Mr. Henderson was intimidating and made threats with respect to Ms. Britt and Mr. Welch during the Commission's investigation of this case. On September 21, 1993, Mr. Henderson called Ms. Britt to ask for intake forms which were mentioned in their conversation of September 15. After he made derogatory comments about Indian people, Ms. Britt stated she was "not impressed" by what he was saying. He replied that he didn't care what she thought, and then indicated that he knew where she lived.

24Forty-five minutes later Mr. Henderson appeared in person. He was upset that he was losing business. When Ms. Britt advised him that this was not her fault, he replied by asking her if she liked men in black leather jackets and chains. He then again talked about losing customers, and said that if the case proceeds, "someone will suffer like I have in the end" (Transcript, v. 2, p. 76). When informed that Mr. Welch would be working with the complaint in the future, he said, "Well, tell Dan Welch that I will meet him in the back and I'll deal with him."

3. Letters

25On June 8, 1995, which was two days after the case conference, an anonymous letter which was obscene and threatening was sent to Ms. Anishinabie's address. She received it when she returned home from the crisis centre. The writer of the letter claims to have been watching her for a long time. The writer refers to her husband's death at Sandy Lake, and claims to be her late husband's cousin. The letter ends with lurid sexual allusions about Ms. Anishinabie.

26Ms. Anishinabie testified that her address was disclosed to Mr. Henderson in the Commission's disclosure package. She pointed out that most people misspell her name, but that it had been correctly spelled in the disclosure package. She did not believe the letter came from a cousin of her husband: her husband's name was wrong, being given as Salas rather than Saulio, but his cousins know his name; the letter was post-marked from Thunder Bay, but all his cousins live on the Sandy Lake reserve or in Wawa; she has never before received a threatening letter, and she is on good terms with her husband's relatives.

27Two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing a second anonymous letter was received by Ms. Anishinabie. The letter appears to have been written by the same author, with similar repeated references to pubic hairs and fish odours. The letter starts with reference to the smell of Ms. Anishinabie's daughter's sexual organs, and then threatens Ms. Anishinabie. In this letter her name is misspelled.

LIABILITY

Services

28Section 1 of the Code defines rights with respect to services.

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap.

Section 9 of the Code prohibits infringement of the rights delineated in ss. 1–8.

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.

29Now, in his Respondent Questionnaire, in comments during the initial conference call and at the in-person hearing day of July 24, 1995, Mr. Henderson repeatedly claimed that if Ms. Anishinabie had offered him the purchase price he would have sold the box spring to her. But even if this claim is true, the facts are that Mr. Henderson's language and behaviour were directed towards denying her the goods and services she desired, and he thus denied her equal treatment with respect to those goods and services. Mr. Henderson denied that he had any box springs for sale when he did have them. He slapped her on the buttocks twice, once after Ms. Anishinabie had explicitly told him not to do so. This effort at humiliation, followed immediately by the question of whether she was going to make the purchase, cannot be seen as other than unequal treatment with respect to goods and services.

30It is also clear that the unequal treatment was with respect to prohibited goods. The physical behaviour of slapping Ms. Henderson on the buttocks is an unequivocal indication of discrimination with respect to sex.

31The discrimination with respect to Ms. Anishinabie's First Nation ancestry is not so directly shown. Ms. Anishinabie testified that she felt at the time that Mr. Henderson was discriminating against her because she is of First Nation ancestry. However, there was no evidence presented of any statements or behaviour by Mr. Henderson at the time of the incident which would show that this was his motivation.

32There was, however, evidence presented sufficient to show a general discriminatory attitude towards persons of First Nation ancestry on the part of Mr. Henderson. His comments to Ms. Britt and Mr. Welch clearly indicate this fact. This discriminatory attitude was reflected in his view of his business, as indicated by his statement to Ms. Britt, "I don't want any fuckin' Indians in here anyway." Moreover, Mr. Henderson's general discriminatory attitude extended to his view of the complainant. He makes this clear in his Respondent Questionnaire when he says, "If I had any bodily contact with said native squaw, it would have been to clear her out of my way to deal with other paying customers ..." While a general discriminatory attitude is not sufficient to infer discriminatory behaviour, the fact that Mr. Henderson's attitude extended to his workplace and to his view of Ms. Anishinabie is sufficient for me to conclude that Mr. Henderson also discriminated because of ancestry.

33I therefore find that the respondent did infringe the rights accorded the complainant under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code in violation of s. 9 of the Code.

REPRISAL

34Section 8 of the Code deals with the question of reprisal. It reads,

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

35In determining the question of whether there has been reprisal or threat of reprisal I shall first consider the two anonymous letters received by Ms. Anishinabie. These two letters are threatening and are highly offensive in their other content. If they were sent by the respondent they would constitute both reprisal and the threat of reprisal.

36The facts of the case show that Mr. Henderson has throughout proceeded with an intimidating matter [sic]. He threatened the human rights officers involved in the investigation. This is shown by his statement to Ms. Britt that he knew her address, by his question whether she liked men in black leather jackets and chains, by his statement that he would meet Mr. Welch in the back and "deal with him", and by his talk of "beating up" people who had complained about him. Sending the threatening letters, as counsel for the Commission pointed out, would be consistent with Mr. Henderson's general behaviour in the case.

37I further agree with Mr. Holder that it was unlikely the letters were sent by Ms. Anishinabie's late husband's relatives. I note, however, that Mr. Henderson has been in possession of Ms. Anishinabie's address since June 1992 when Ms. Britt, as investigating officer, sent the complaint to him and requested his response. Although Mr. Henderson engaged in intimidating behaviour and made threats of reprisal to the human rights officers involved, there were no direct threats made by him to Ms. Anishinabie, and she received no anonymous letters as reprisals or containing threats of reprisal. Mr. Holder notes that Mr. Henderson was angry at the case conference, and that this adds credence to the proposition that he sent the letters. A reading of his replies in the Respondent Questionnaire suggests that he was angry when filling it out. Yet there were no threats of reprisals to Ms. Anishinabie at that time.

38I am unable to conclude that Mr. Henderson did not send the letters. However, because of the above considerations with respect to the evidence presented respecting the anonymous letters, I cannot conclude that he did send them, and do not find him in violation of the Code on the basis of the letters.

39However, Mr. Henderson did make threatening comments during the course of the hearing. He so intimidated Ms. Anishinabie during the case conference that she was afraid to go home, and instead moved into a crisis home. At the end of the first conference call he said that "someone will pay". Ms. Anishinabie was present at the call, appropriately took the comments as being directed at least in part to her, and was very upset after Mr. Henderson hung up. When he left the hearing room on July 14, 1995, he said to Ms. Anishinabie that he hoped the letter writer got "a hold" of her.

40The intimidating behaviour and vulgar language used towards Ms. Anishinabie constitute reprisal in themselves. In the context of Mr. Henderson's conduct during the investigation and the hearing, the comments made at the end of the conference call and as he exited the hearing room on July 14 are clear cases of threats of reprisal. They were directed at Ms. Anishinabie because of her attempts to enforce her rights under the Act. I accordingly find that Mr. Henderson did infringe the rights accorded the complainant under s. 8 of the Act in violation of s. 9 of the Act.

41I want to make it clear that the finding of liability under s. 8 is directed only to the personal respondent. As I stated in my disposition of the second preliminary motion, the firm is liable for acts committed by a partner during the ordinary course of business of the firm. Mr. Otway, as a partner in the firm, is jointly and severally liable for the liabilities of the firm. This is the case with respect to the infringement of s. 1. But the infringement of s. 8 did not take place during the ordinary course of business of the firm. Further, Mr. Henderson's threat of reprisal took place after the Near New Store had ceased doing business. Given these considerations, and given the fact that no allegations of any kind of inappropriate behaviour were ever made with respect to Mr. Otway, I find only Mr. Henderson to be liable with respect to the matter of reprisal.

REMEDY

42Section 41 of the Code confers power upon a board to order remedies:

41(1) Where the board of inquiry, after a hearing, finds that a right of the complainant under Part I has been infringed and that the infringement is a contravention of section 9 by a party to the proceeding, the board may, by order,

(a) direct the party to do anything that, in the opinion of the board, the party ought to do to achieve compliance with this Act, both in respect of the complaint and in respect of future practices; and

(b) direct the party to make restitution, including monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, and, where the infringement has been engaged in wifully or recklessly, monetary compensation may include an award, not exceeding $10,000, for mental anguish.

43The Commission has requested three orders in respect to remedy under s. 41(1)(a):

(1) That Mr. Henderson not contact either the complainant or the witnesses to this proceeding, except through the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

(2) That Mr. Henderson notify the Commission of his new address if he leaves the jurisdiction;

(3) That Mr. Henderson and Mr. Otway notify the Commission if they plan to enter again, either together or separately, into the retail sales business, so that the Commission can issue to them cards regarding the Human Rights Code which can be placed prominently in their store.

The Commission also requested that Ms. Anishinabie be given monetary compensation with respect to both parts of s. 41(1)(b) and that the sum be $5,000 for general damages and $10,000 for mental anguish.

44I am granting each of the Commission's request for orders. First, Mr. Henderson's aggressive behaviour and threats of reprisal have intimidated and frightened both the complainant and several witnesses. Because of a reasonable fear of ongoing reprisal on the part of the witnesses, any further contact with the witnesses by Mr. Henderson should be through the Commission. Second, Mr. Henderson did ma[k]e several statements to the effect that he was leaving the province, and it would be appropriate for purposes of enforcing the Board's decision that Mr. Henderson be able to be contacted. Third, it is usual for firms which have been found in violation of the Code to be required to post copies of the Code prominently in their businesses. The Near New Store is no longer operating, so the Code cannot be displayed. But in respect to potential future practices such display would be in the public interest.

45Because there are two different sections violated at different times, and because the liabilities have been assessed differently, I shall consider compensation to Ms. Anishinabie in two parts. With respect to the violation of s. 1, I note that there was a single incident of denial of goods and services. While there was a sexual incident, freedom from harassment or sexual harassment is not a prohibited ground under s. 1. Nonetheless, this incident increases the loss of dignity and self-respect suffered by Ms. Anishinabie. I accordingly award $1,000 general damages for loss arising from the infringement.

46Interest is awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act [R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43], from the date of the complaint. I calculate that interest as $312.50.

47Mr. Henderson's behaviour was willful and reckless. Both his lying about box springs being available for sale and his slapping of Ms. Anishinabie's buttocks were done in order to deny her equal access to goods and services. However, in Ms. Anishinabie's testimony I have not found persuasive evidence of mental anguish occasioned by the incident. I am accordingly not exercising my discretion to award compensation for mental anguish.

48With respect to the violation of s. 8, I note that there were several different incidents, and that the threatened reprisals were serious. Ms. Anishinabie was terrified by the threats, sufficiently so that she felt it necessary to enter a women's crisis centre, thus suffering considerable restriction of her freedom of movement and the enjoyment of her personal goods. In addition to these losses, her loss of dignity and self-respect was greater, given that Mr. Henderson's actions were subsequent to those of the original incident, and she has suffered from the loss suffered from the infringement of the right of equality itself. In consideration of the overall losses, I award $3,000 general damages for loss arising out of the infringement.

49Mr. Henderson's behaviour in all of the incidents relevant to the violation of s. 8 were willful and reckless. He was quite consciously threatening reprisal. It is clear that the threats had an effect on Ms. Anishinabie's mental state. She expressed a fear for her life, and a concern that she could not leave the crisis home and return to a home where she could bring up her children normally. Even absent expert testimony or that of those with whom she spent time after the incidents, I believe it is reaconable to conclude that she suffered mental anguish as a result of Mr. Henderson's willful and reckless behaviour. I accordingly award an additional $2,000 for mental anguish.

50Interest with respect to these awards is awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, calculated from the date of amending the complaint to include reprisal, July 1995. I calculate this interest as $380.

ORDER

51This Board of Inquiry having found the respondents Gordon Henderson and the Near New Store to have committed certain breaches of s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, and having found the respondent Gordon Henderson to have committed certain breaches of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code hereby orders the following:

(1) With respect to the breach of s. 1, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay forthwith to the complainant as follows:

(a) as general damages, the sum of $1,000;

(b) interest on the said sum, in the amount of $312.50.

(2) With respect to the breach of s. 8, the respondent Gordon Henderson is liable to pay forthwith to the complainant as follows:

(a) as general damages, the sum of $3,000;

(b) as award for mental anguish, the sum of $2,000;

(c) interest on the said sums, in the amount of $380.

(3) The respondents shall inform the Ontario Human Rights Commission of any business either of them operates in Ontario in order to obtain cards from the Commission regarding the Human Rights Code which can be placed prominently in their place of business.

(4) The respondent Gordon Henderson shall inform the Ontario Human Rights Commission of his address should he move his residence from the Province of Ontario.

(5) The respondent Gordon Henderson shall contact neither the complainant, Angie Anishinabie, nor the witnesses to this proceeding, Linda Britt, Delores Collins or Daniel Welch, except through the Ontario Human Rights Commission.