HRTO 1998

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after being denied two positions as Assistant Superintendent for a new French-language school board.

The Board of Inquiry found that in the first competition run by the Metro Board, the complainant was denied the position as a reprisal for having filed a previous human rights complaint.

In the second competition run by CÉFCUT, the Board found that the selection process was tainted by discrimination on the basis of place of origin, as some committee members were predisposed against the complainant because he was not a Franco-Ontarian.

However, the ultimate selection decision in the second competition was not discriminatory, as the successful candidate was chosen based on superior experiential qualifications.

The complaint was upheld in part.

The complainant, a black vice-principal, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was repeatedly denied promotion to the position of principal by the Durham Board of Education.

The Board of Inquiry found that the school board engaged in both direct and systemic discrimination.

The complainant was subjected to racist comments during an interview, denied permission to take the principal's course, and offered less release time than white counterparts.

The school board's informal and inconsistently applied promotion criteria disproportionately disadvantaged black teachers, who were concentrated in treatment schools and hindered from transferring to regular schools.

The complaint against the corporate respondent was upheld, while the complaint against the personal respondent was dismissed.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination, arguing that the Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction when the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew from participating in the hearing.

The Board held that while the Commission can abandon active carriage of the complaint, it cannot withdraw the complaint itself once referred, nor can it withdraw as a statutory party.

The Board retained jurisdiction, and the complainant was entitled to rely on his statutory party status to present evidence and argument on the merits of the complaint.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status because the condominium's rules restricted children under 16 from using certain recreational facilities, such as the fitness room and whirlpool, and limited their swimming pool hours.

The Board of Inquiry found that access to the recreational facilities was an integral part of the occupancy of accommodation.

While the age-based restrictions did not constitute direct discrimination on the basis of family status, they had a disparate negative impact on parents, amounting to constructive discrimination.

The Board concluded that the rules in place at the time of the complaint failed to accommodate the complainant's needs short of undue hardship, although subsequent rule changes were found to be a reasonable balance.

The respondents were ordered to pay $500 in general damages and to ensure parent representation on the recreation committee.

The complainant requested reconsideration of an earlier interim decision deferring a constitutional question to the courts, and sought to amend her human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry held that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision because its rules of practice do not provide for reconsideration, as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board also dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the proposed amendments did not assert new grounds of discrimination but merely pleaded additional evidence and particularized allegations already covered by the original complaint, which the respondents had already conceded.

The complainant, a labeller at a paint manufacturing plant, alleged she was subjected to ongoing sexual and gender-based harassment by two male co-workers, including inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and physical assaults.

After she suffered a chemical burn from one of the co-workers, the police were called and the men were charged with sexual assault.

Despite this, management failed to investigate, separate the employees, or take any steps to prevent further harassment.

The complainant was subsequently terminated for alleged insubordination.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was sexually harassed, creating a poisoned work environment, and that the harassment was a contributing factor to her dismissal.

The corporate respondent and its senior managers were held jointly and severally liable for failing to take reasonable steps to address the harassment.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the 1994 human rights complaints against them on the grounds of abuse of process.

The complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap regarding the placement of the complainant following a workplace injury.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of the complaints involved significant delay, failure to provide timely notice, and inadequate disclosure.

Combined with the closure of the workplace, the destruction of relevant documents, and the deaths of key witnesses including the complainant, the respondents suffered irremediable prejudice.

The Board concluded that continuing the hearing would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the complaints against all respondents.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Board of Inquiry directed a conference call to address the complainant's request for reconsideration of a prior decision deferring a constitutional question, an extension of time to pursue the question in court, and scheduling for motions to amend the complaint and confine the scope of evidence.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's request for documentary disclosure of management meeting minutes as premature, pending the resolution of the preliminary motions.

The complainants, a Black mother and daughter, alleged that the respondents discriminated against them on the basis of race by refusing to rent them an apartment.

The mother viewed the apartment on behalf of her daughter and was told the next day it was rented.

A white friend called later and was told it was available.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The adjudicator found that a prima facie case of discrimination was established and ordered the respondents to pay general damages and damages for mental anguish to both complainants, and to implement a non-discriminatory tenant application form.

The complainant alleged sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in employment against the respondents.

Prior to the hearing, the complainant and respondents reached a full settlement.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, although not a party to the settlement, advised it did not wish to proceed with the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry interpreted this as consent and ordered the matter disposed of in accordance with the settlement terms.

The complainant alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her during a visit to her apartment and subsequently engaged in acts of reprisal when she rejected his advances.

She resigned due to stress and later sought re-employment, which the employer refused.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the sexual harassment and supervisor reprisal complaints, finding the supervisor's version of events more credible.

However, the Board found that the employer and its human resources director engaged in reprisal by refusing to re-hire the complainant without properly investigating her sexual harassment complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages.

The complainant, a police officer, alleged that the respondents failed to accommodate her pregnancy-related health needs and engaged in reprisal by transferring her and her husband after she sought assistance from her union.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant failed to adequately communicate her need for accommodation to her employer.

The Board preferred the evidence of the respondent Inspector, concluding that he was unaware of the complainant's medical difficulties with night shifts.

The Board also found that the transfers were made for legitimate operational reasons and did not constitute reprisal.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her on the basis of family status by denying her the opportunity to rent an apartment because she had a child.

The respondent claimed the apartment was unsafe for children and that it had been reserved for two men.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondent's explanations implausible and concluded that she had constructively excluded the complainant due to a de facto 'adults only' policy.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the discriminatory practice, pay $1,000 in general damages, and reimburse the complainant for the rent differential incurred.

The adjudicator determined the quantum of costs payable by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the City of Thunder Bay following a previous order for costs on a party and party basis for 20 hearing days, reduced by 30%.

The City claimed approximately $73,000, while the Commission argued for $18,350.50.

The adjudicator allowed preparation time but excluded the cost of a legal assistant and time spent arguing about costs.

After applying the necessary reductions and pro-rating, the costs were fixed at $47,907.91.

Following a finding that the respondents discriminated against the complainant in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin, the parties were unable to agree on remedies.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened and, with the agreement of the parties, ordered the respondent school board to pay $10,000 in general damages and to review its transfer procedures and policies to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Code.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, the respondents sought to call two of the complainant's subsequent employers to testify about her work performance.

The Commission objected to this evidence.

The adjudicator ruled that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the respondents' perception and assessment of the complainant's work performance at the time of her employment with them.

The evidence was deemed inadmissible, as better direct evidence was available from co-workers at the relevant time.

The complainant, a waitress, alleged she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

After experiencing complications requiring bed rest, she informed her employer and offered a medical note.

The employer claimed she quit and that he had already intended to fire her for poor performance.

The Board found the complainant's version of events more credible, concluding she did not quit and that the employer used her pregnancy and request for medical leave as an opportunity to terminate her.

The Board held this constituted discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and awarded specific and general damages.