HRTO 2003

The complainant, who has a physical disability, agreed to rent the main floor of the respondent's home.

The respondent agreed to build a ramp and railing to accommodate her disability.

Before the move-in date, the respondent failed to complete the ramp and effectively terminated the rental agreement, citing the need to finish basement renovations first.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions amounted to a refusal to accommodate the complainant's disability, violating her right to equal treatment in the occupancy of accommodation.

The respondent was ordered to pay special damages for lost deposits and moving expenses, as well as general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination.

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint, the respondents sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under section 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to award costs.

Although the complainant's evidence was found to be unreliable and partly fabricated, the Tribunal held that the respondents' own conduct, including resisting bifurcation and pursuing irrelevant collateral issues, significantly contributed to the protracted 22-day hearing.

The Tribunal concluded it was not an appropriate case to exercise its discretion to award costs.

The respondents brought a motion for an order directing the Ontario Human Rights Commission to provide particulars concerning the allegations against each respondent, or alternatively to strike unparticularized parts of the complaint.

The Tribunal granted the motion, emphasizing the respondents' right to know the case to be met and the importance of complete information in human rights proceedings.

The Commission was ordered to provide specific particulars, identify the exact allegations against each respondent, specify the sections of the Human Rights Code allegedly infringed, and identify where in the disclosure documents the requested particulars could be found.

The Complainant, an 18-year-old co-op student, alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the Personal Respondent, an owner of the hotel where she worked.

The Tribunal found that the Personal Respondent repeatedly sexually harassed the Complainant and other female staff, creating a poisoned work environment.

When the Complainant rejected his advances and complained to the General Manager, the Personal Respondent demanded the General Manager find a pretext to fire her.

When the General Manager refused and resigned, the Personal Respondent terminated the Complainant.

The Tribunal held the Personal and Corporate Respondents jointly and severally liable for breaches of the Human Rights Code, awarding general damages, damages for mental anguish, and special damages for lost wages.