Phillip John Streeter v. HR Technologies Inc. and Richard Booth, 2009 HRTO 841

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Phillip John Streeter

Applicant

-and-

HR Technologies Inc. and Richard Booth

Respondents

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE decision

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: June 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 841

Indexed as: Streeter v. HR Technologies

APPEARANCES BY

Phillip John Streeter, Applicant ) On his own behalf

HR Technologies Inc and Richard Booth, Respondents ) Richard Booth

1This is an Application brought under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying Complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”) is dated January 27, 2008 and alleges discrimination on the basis of creed in employment.

2This Case Resolution Conference was held on March 12 and April 3, 2009 in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner. I heard from the applicant, the individual respondent (“the respondent”) as well as two employees of the respondent corporation (“the company”), Chris Kamarianakis and Marley Brooks.

The Evidence

3The applicant worked for the company from March 1995 to June 2007. He has a technical computer background and his position at the end of his employment was network administrator and program analyst. He was not a member of management. His employment was terminated without cause on June 20, 2007. He describes himself as Christian in his beliefs but not an active church-goer.

4The company sells and supports human resources management systems, time and attendance systems, payroll systems and provides related professional services and support. The respondent is the president and owner of the company and is an ordained minister of the Christian faith.

5All witnesses made a significant effort to recollect the events in question, some of which date back as far as 14 years. In many cases, the applicant had a clearer recollection of the events than did the respondent, however, with respect to most of the issues, there was sufficient congruity between the competing versions of events to allow me to make the appropriate findings of fact. Where I prefer the evidence of one witness over another, I have noted that.

6The applicant was interviewed by the respondent in March 1995 for a technical computer support position with the company. During the interview, which the applicant estimated was two hours in length, there was some questioning of the applicant by the respondent with respect to matters of religion and the Christian faith. The applicant stated that he was surprised by this but wanted the job which appeared to him to be just what he was looking for at the time. The respondent said that he asked these questions about the applicant’s beliefs in order to ensure that there would be a good fit with the company’s culture and values. He conceded that there might have been two minutes worth of discussion with respect to religious/Christian matters, and on this basis I find that some questioning of the applicant took place with respect to his religious beliefs.

7The applicant stated that there were a number of meetings held at the company during the course of his 12 years of employment that started with a prayer. This only occurred when the respondent was leading the meeting (which happened only occasionally) and was estimated by the applicant to have occurred about six times in the 12 year timeframe. The respondent agreed that it probably occurred on two or three occasions. Ms. Brooks testified that in her nine years of employment, she attended about four meetings at which prayer occurred.

8The applicant asserted that he felt it was mandatory to attend most if not all of these meetings, and he stated that he was uncomfortable with the prayer portion of the meetings. He stated that he complained to Joan Miron who was the office manager at the time and the applicant’s supervisor on a number of occasions, with no apparent effect on the respondent’s conduct.

9The respondent pointed out that many of the meetings in question were voluntary and not mandatory. An e-mail from the respondent to the company's staff dated June 1, 2007 was entered into evidence, which states in part “As we have done on occasion before, I would like to invite you to a 10 minute time of prayer and acknowledgment of God in our company. If you are here and not opposed to coming I would like you to participate”. The applicant testified that he did not attend the meeting in question because he was busy working on the company's computer network. He stated that following the meeting, the respondent asked him in a somewhat accusatory tone why he had not been at the meeting. The applicant responded that he had been busy with other things and the applicant gave evidence at the hearing that as a result of this encounter, he felt that the meeting was not really voluntary in nature.

10Similarly, the applicant asserted that there was pressure by the respondent to attend a religious Bible study group that was led by the respondent every Wednesday at the noon hour for about eight years. Although the applicant conceded that attendance at the study group was voluntary (officially), he said that on occasion the respondent would walk around the office and would encourage employees of the company to attend the study group. This was not seriously disputed by the respondent. The applicant said that he would leave the office early for lunch on Wednesdays as he felt there was compulsion from the respondent to attend the study group, and he did not wish to. The respondent conceded that he did walk around the office so as to extend invitations to attend the Bible study group, and that at times he might have sounded “accusatory”. Ms. Brooks gave evidence that she and about four or five other employees regularly attended the study group over a number of years.

11The applicant alleged that a salesperson who had initially joined the study group but then left was not spoken to by the respondent for some time as a result. This allegation was based strictly on hearsay evidence and was rebutted by the respondent. I am not satisfied that this allegation is proven.

12The applicant alleged that each year at the company Christmas party, the respondent would require the employees to sing Christmas carols.. While the applicant was not too concerned about that in general, he pointed to an incident that occurred in December 2006 which involved some employees being disruptive during the singing of the Christmas carols (the applicant was not one of them). The respondent stormed out of the room leaving the employees wondering whether they were free to leave (as they had in the past following the conclusion of the Christmas carols). Ms. Miron was required to go to the respondent to confirm that the employees were in fact free to leave. The respondent did not dispute this version of events.

13In April 1999, the respondent gave a Bible to the applicant. Although he did not exhort the applicant to study it, it was inscribed with a personal note from the respondent which quoted a passage from the Book of Proverbs. The applicant testified that he felt uncomfortable as a result of receiving this gift, which was unsolicited.

14The applicant testified that at least five times during the course of his employment with the company he became involved in discussions in the office regarding religion, some of which were instigated by the respondent. He indicated that he felt uncomfortable as a result of these discussions but participated in them as he felt he had to. The respondent did not seriously question the applicant’s evidence as to the number of occasions on which such discussions took place, but indicated that the culture of the company was an open one which permitted some discussion about non-business topics, including religion.

15The applicant testified and the respondent agreed that at a lunch which took place in the food court of the Sherway Gardens Mall, the respondent asked the applicant to recite out loud a prayer. Although he was uncomfortable and even embarrassed in doing so, the applicant said that he agreed to do so because the respondent was his boss. The respondent did not dispute that this incident occurred.

16On one side of the company's premises, there is an open large room which was occasionally used for staff meetings and social events. In a storage room off the large room there were religious items such as chalices stored. These items were used by the respondent in non-business hours, however no religious services occurred during the course of the workday. The applicant indicated that this room was known as “Richard's Church” or “the Church of Booth” among the staff. The applicant testified that on one occasion on the weekend, he was contacted by the respondent to come to the office in order to fix the network; however, on arrival, it turned out that the respondent needed assistance with the projector in the large room in connection with a religious event being held by the respondent. The applicant stated in his evidence that he did not appreciate being called in on the weekend for something related to the respondent’s church activities.

17On another occasion, the applicant's wife was waiting for him outside the company's offices. The respondent greeted his wife who indicated that she was suffering from a headache. The respondent proceeded to place his hand on the applicant's wife's head and to pray for her, as a result of which she felt uncomfortable as she thought the respondent’s actions were inappropriate.

18The applicant asserted that the respondent encouraged employees of the company to attend a particular seminar which ran from Friday to Sunday. The applicant suggested that one employee who attended part but not all of the seminar ended up being docked one day’s pay as a result. The applicant's evidence was based exclusively on hearsay and was effectively rebutted by the respondent who indicated that he had an agreement with the employees who attended the seminar which he had applied to the employee in question. In any event, this issue is not relevant as the seminar was not a Christian seminar but rather dealt with non-religious topics.

19The applicant alleged that Chris Kamarianakis, who was hired as the company's vice president in February 2007 and became the applicant’s supervisor, was an evangelist and motivational speaker. These terms were obtained by the applicant from Mr. Kamarianakis’ resume which is on his personal website. Mr. Kamarianakis gave evidence, which I accept, that these terms were used in only a business sense and that he is not an evangelist nor is he a motivational speaker.

20The applicant testified that sometime in the spring of 2007, the respondent engaged him in conversation initially in the company kitchen about a Toronto Star article that the applicant was reading which dealt with people working hard all their lives and then dying shortly after entering retirement. At the respondent’s urging, the conversation moved into the respondent's office at which time there was an extensive discussion about “heaven and hell” and the afterlife. While both men had different recollections of the details of this discussion I am satisfied the discussion took place in the respondent's office, and lasted approximately one half hour. The respondent asked the applicant to become involved in the respondent’s religious teachings, which the applicant declined to do. The applicant changed the course of the discussion at this point, became more abrupt and indicated his concern about the discussion and the situation through body language. The applicant testified that he felt extremely uncomfortable during this discussion and that he felt trapped in the respondent's office. He also said that by the end of the meeting, the respondent’s demeanor was different in that he was cold and the “temperature was frosty”. The respondent did not have a strong recollection of the details of the meeting, challenged the applicant’s suggestion that the respondent did not believe in a heaven and hell, but did not deny that it took place.

21This meeting was the first time that the applicant had indicated in any way directly to the respondent that he was uncomfortable with the religious overtones in the office which were bothering the applicant. He said that during the 12 years of his employment, he did not wish to address the respondent directly because of the respondent’s power in the workplace as the president of the company. The applicant stayed with the company because he enjoyed his job and the people at the company, as well as the general atmosphere (except for the religious overtones). He was also paid a reasonable salary for his work. He described himself as being the type of person who likes to avoid confrontation, and that more often than not, when confronted with an issue he would just give in. The most that the applicant did to register his objection to the respondent’s religious “coercion”, as it was described by the applicant, was to go to Joan Miron and complain. He states that Ms. Miron told him that from time to time she would have to advise the respondent to tone down the religious tone of the respondent's memos within the company. No other response resulted from the applicant’s complaints to Ms. Miron from either her or the respondent.

22The applicant made it clear in his evidence that he was uncomfortable with respect to the extent to which religion found its way into the workplace, but that he simply “put up with religion” because he had to in order to keep his job.

23Approximately 2 weeks after the “heaven and hell” discussion between the applicant and the respondent, Mr. Kamarianakis conducted a performance review on the applicant. The written performance review contained both praise and constructive suggestions for improvement. However, the applicant alleged that Mr. Kamarianakis made a number of statements about the applicant’s work performance that were surprising, even shocking to the applicant during the course of the performance appraisal meeting. These will not be reviewed in detail as I am satisfied that there was no connection between the “heaven and hell” discussion and the conduct of the applicant's performance review, based on the evidence of both the respondent and Mr. Kamarianakis to the effect that there was no communication between them regarding that discussion or any other matter related to religion or the applicant. Mr. Kamarianakis was new to the company and brought with him from prior employment a businesslike and straightforward style to his work, including the conduct of performance appraisals. Performance appraisals were conducted on a number of other company employees at the same time as the applicant's appraisal. I find that there was nothing in either the timing or content of the applicant's performance appraisal that was related to religion.

24The applicant responded to his performance appraisal in a letter dated June 11. When he did not receive a prompt response, he inquired of Mr. Kamarianakis as to when he could expect a reply. Mr. Kamarianakis responded in a raised voice in the open office area containing other employees that he would get back to the applicant in about one week. The applicant found this demeaning and disrespectful. I am satisfied that at the time of this exchange, Mr. Kamarianakis was heavily involved in discussions with the respondent which are described below related to the serious financial condition of the company and that he did not intend to be disrespectful to the applicant. Given my finding that Mr. Kamarianakis was not aware of any issues regarding the applicant’s religion, this incident does not support the applicant’s claim of discrimination.

25Mr. Kamarianakis was hired in early 2007 to focus on the sales and marketing efforts of the company. He was not initially involved in the financial affairs of the company. Although he was able to have some positive effect on the sales and revenue of the company in the first few months after his arrival, the company’s financial situation remained serious, requiring the respondent to personally fund it in an amount in excess of $100,000. By May the company was losing approximately $55,000 per month and it was obvious to the respondent that this situation could not continue. He therefore brought Mr. Kamarianakis into his confidence. Mr. Kamarianakis was asked to prepare a restructuring plan, a copy of which was entered into evidence along with two cash position statements and the company’s unaudited financial statements for the year ending April 30, 2008.

26The respondent was concerned about the disclosure of intimate financial matters in these documents and asked that the documents not be entered into evidence. Section 9 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 permits me to order parts of the Tribunal record sealed. I accept that these documents contain intimate financial information and that the desirability of avoiding their disclosure and the interests of the respondent and the company are such that it outweighs the principle that the record of a Tribunal hearing be open to the public. I ordered that Exhibits 5 to 8 produced in this proceeding be sealed and are not available to the public or any third party. The applicant may view but cannot copy the documents.

27Mr. Kamarianakis prepared a restructuring plan which focused on the reduction of the company's expenses. He made suggestions about the reduction of both payroll and other expenses and recommended the termination of six employees on the basis of whether or not their continued work could be justified and was necessary to the company's business in the future. The applicant was number three on the list of six. Mr. Kamarianakis testified that the decision to reduce staff was a very difficult one for the respondent to make, as he did not wish to lose any employees because of the personal impact on them. However, he was finally convinced to terminate four employees, one of whom was the applicant.

28The applicant's termination was justified on the basis that the operation of the network and servers used by the company could be outsourced, the IT support to the company's users could be assumed by another employee and the programming work performed by the applicant for client projects could be performed by the company's existing Development department. Mr. Kamarianakis emphasized in his evidence the extreme urgency for the company to move quickly in June due to the dire financial circumstances which challenged the survival of the company, and the fact that the decision-making about the applicant's termination (as well as the termination of the other three employees who were also terminated on June 20, 2007) was based exclusively on business and financial reasons. He made it clear that at no time during the May/June timeframe was there any discussion between he and the respondent about religious matters involving the applicant or anyone else.

29In cross examination of Mr. Kamarianakis, the applicant challenged some of the company's decision-making underlying his termination. However, in view of my finding below regarding the basis for the applicant’s termination, such issues are irrelevant.

Decision

30The relevant sections of the Code are as follows:

5.(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

23(2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

31Section 5(1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, creed by the employer or an agent of the employer. I find, for the reasons set out below, that the respondent engaged in discrimination in relation to the applicant on the basis of creed during his employment with the company, by creating a religious/creed related atmosphere in the workplace which became a term and condition of the applicant’s employment.

32The Tribunal's jurisprudence has articulated the requirements for a finding of harassment, as follows:

• a course of vexatious behaviour;

• by an employer, employer’s agent or a fellow employee;

• that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; and

• is based on a protected ground under the Code

See Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd. (1987), 1987 CanLII 8515 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4110 (Ont. Bd.Inq.).

33The term “vexatious” clearly imports a subjective element into the definition of harassment. The comment or conduct must be annoying, distressing or agitating to the person complaining: see Wall v. University of Waterloo (1995), 1995 CanLII 18161 (ON HRT), 27 C.H.R.R. D/44 (Ont. Bd.Inq.). It has also been said that conduct is vexatious where the complainant finds the comments and conduct worrisome, discomfiting and demeaning; see Saunders v. Morsal Developments Ltd. (August 23, 1995), No. 718 (Ont. Bd.Inq.).

34In addition to considering whether the harasser knew his or her behaviour was unwelcome, human rights tribunals also consider the perspective of the person alleging harassment when assessing whether a harasser ought reasonably to have known that the comments or conduct at issue was unwelcome. For example, it has been held that whether the harasser ought to have known that his behaviour was unwelcome depends on whether a reasonable person in the position of the person alleging harassment would find such conduct to be unwelcome and, if so, whether reasonable people in the respondent's position would know that to be the case; see Ghosh v. Domglas (No. 2) (1992), 1992 CanLII 14247 (ON HRT), 17 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd.Inq.).

35Protest or objection to the allegedly harassing conduct is not a precondition to a finding of harassment: Howard v. deRuiter, 2004 HRTO 8. In Simpson v. Consumers’ Association of Canada (2001), 2001 CanLII 23994 (ON CA), 57 O.R. (3d) 351 (C.A.); leave to appeal refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 83, it was noted that because of the power imbalance in the supervisor/employee relationship and the perceived consequences of objecting to his supervisor's behaviour, an employee may go along with unwelcome conduct. In Bell v. Korczak (1980), 1980 CanLII 3899 (ON HRT), 1 C.H.R.R. D/155 (Ont. Bd.Inq.), the continued willingness of the complainant to work was found not to constitute acceptance of the impugned conduct.

36In Dufour v. J. Rogers Deschamp Comptable Agréé (1989), 1989 CanLII 9087 (ON HRT), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6153 (Ont. Bd.Inq.), employees in a small accounting firm were subjected to situations analogous to the facts before me. At one employee’s interview, the employer told the employee that the owners of the business were Christians and that the atmosphere in the firm was a Christian atmosphere.. An employee who was subject to headaches was recommended group prayer sessions by the employer to cure her migraines and at least one session was held in the office board room. One employee was provided a Bible by the employer. It was clear that the employer initiated almost all of the many discussions about religion. Prayer sessions were held each morning in the boardroom, to which employees were invited.

37In Dufour, the Board of Inquiry stated as follows:

44242 A person's religious outlook goes to the heart of his or her being. Harassing or discriminating against someone because of religion is a severe affront to that person's dignity, and a denial theof [sic] equal respect that is essential to a liberal democratic society.

44243 "Human rights legislation," the Supreme Court of Canada has said, "is of a special nature and declares public policy regarding matters of general concern": Winnipeg School Division No. 1 v. Craton, 1985 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150 at 156, [6 C.H.R.R. D/3014 at D/3016]. The Human Rights Code, 1981, explicitly protects employees against religious pressure or religiously based mistreatment. No matter how convinced anyone may be that he or she has a religious message that others should hear and heed, the Code prohibits him or her from pressing that message in the workplace. A religiously militant employer is no more entitled to impose his or her version of religious enlightenment on employees than a sexually militant employer is entitled to impose his or her sexual ideas or wishes.

44244 It is true that the Code's provisions on religious harassment and religious discrimination do not prohibit all overtures or all conversation on religion, just as the provisions on sexual harassment and sexual discrimination do not prohibit all social overtures by employers or co-workers toward employees, or all discussion of sexual topics. In each case, however, an employer or co-worker must scrupulously avoid taking any advantage of the employment relationship or the workplace environment to put unwelcome pressure, whether sexual or religious, on any employee.

38It is not disputed some religious questioning of the applicant took place at the initial interview between the applicant and the respondent in March 1995. Although the respondent indicated that he was simply ensuring that he and the applicant had the same values in order that the applicant would fit in well with the company's culture, the respondent admitted that there was at least some questioning of the applicant pertaining to religious matters. I find this to be contrary to section 23(2) of the Code which specifically prohibits oral inquiries of a job applicant which directly or indirectly classify or indicate qualifications on the basis of a prohibited ground, which in this case was the applicant’s religious beliefs. This questioning was the start of a course of conduct by the respondent which extended over the 12 years of the applicant’s employment in which he “pressed” his religious messages in the workplace.

39During the course of the applicant’s employment with the company, he was subjected to a variety of matters which taken cumulatively produced a religious atmosphere in the workplace and which the applicant felt he was required to participate in as part of his employment. Although neither Mr. Kamarianakis nor Ms. Brooks felt that the atmosphere in the office was inappropriate or particularly religiously “charged”, the effect on the applicant must also be assessed, and I accept his evidence that he was uncomfortable and felt coerced with respect to issues such as the gift of a Bible, religious discussions occurring during the work day, prayer components to business meetings, weekly Bible study groups that were not perceived by him to be truly voluntary, the requirement to pray during a meal in an public space and especially the “heaven and hell” meeting which took place in the respondent's office towards the end of his employment. I am satisfied that the applicant found the respondent’s conduct to be unwelcome.

40The respondent’s explanation was that the values and culture which were part of the workplace atmosphere at the company were based on the values and principles of the Christian faith but were not overtly religious. I find that that was not the case and that the religious overtones in the workplace went beyond normal office discourse or casual discussion, given the clear evidence of expressly religious discussions and practices (prayers, giving of a Bible, bible study sessions) which cannot be described other than as overtly religious (save perhaps for the singing of Christmas carols which might be understood as cultural). In particular the respondent’s invitation to the applicant to become involved in the respondent’s religious teachings is a clear example of the respondent introducing religion into the workplace and in fact, attempting to persuade the applicant to engage with respect to an issue which has nothing to do with the company's business or the applicant’s work as an employee of the company. For these reasons, I find that the respondent ought to have known that his conduct as described above was unwelcome to the applicant.

41This Decision should not be taken as meaning that any discussion in the workplace about religious topics or a person’s own religious practices or beliefs will constitute a breach of the Code. It is important that people in a workplace, including the employer, be able to express their opinions freely (within the confines of the Code). However, as pointed out in the Dufour case, the employer must be very careful to not put any unwelcome pressure on an employee such that religion or religious adherence becomes a term and condition of employment.

42A person such as the respondent who holds genuinely held religious beliefs is entitled to express those beliefs in the workplace. However, where such person is also an employer, as employer, they have a responsibility to ensure the right of employees in the workplace to be free of discrimination on the basis of creed. In Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710 the Supreme Court said:

When we ask people to be tolerant of others, we do not ask them to abandon their personal convictions. We merely ask them to respect the rights, values and ways of being of those who may not share those convictions. The belief that others are entitled to equal respect depends, not on the belief that their values are right, but on the belief that they have a claim to equal respect regardless of whether they are right. (para. 66)

43The respondent urged me to find that the applicant's claim must fail because of his failure to complain or indicate in any way to the respondent that he was uncomfortable with the existence of religion in the workplace. However, as the above authorities indicate, a failure to object to the conduct in question is not fatal. In this case, I find it was reasonable for the applicant to not confront the respondent directly about his issues, given that he was concerned about the power and authority of the respondent in relation to the applicant’s employment, and given that the applicant otherwise enjoyed his employment with the company. In any event, as noted above, the applicant did complain to Ms. Miron, his direct supervisor, when he wished to express his discomfiture about the religious overtones in the workplace, but without any result.

44With respect to the question of whether the applicant’s termination of employment was based wholly or in part by considerations of religion, I find that that it was not. The company was on the verge of financial collapse in the spring and early summer of 2007. Its continued operation was dependent on the personal financial resources of the respondent which had reached their limit. The company was experiencing a significant loss each and every month and there was a need for decisive, prompt action in order to save the company. Mr. Kamarianakis had joined the company in early 2007 and was only provided full knowledge of the company’s dire financial situation some time in May. When asked to do so by the respondent, he provided a restructuring plan which called for significant employee reductions, only some of which were accepted by the respondent.

45I am satisfied that any issues that the respondent had with the applicant pertaining to religion, without determining whether there were any, were not communicated to Mr. Kamarianakis and were not taken into account in the decision-making pertaining to the termination of the applicant’s employment. Accordingly, I find that the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment for non-discriminatory reasons and not in breach of the Code.

Remedy

46Section 45.2 (1) of the Code provides the Tribunal with the authority to direct a party who has violated the Code to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

47In this case, the applicant experienced an interview at which he was asked questions of a religious nature and 12 years of events (which occurred on an irregular and occasional basis) which made him uncomfortable. At the same time the applicant admitted that he had a good working relationship with the respondent but for the religious practices and discussions. Compared to other cases in which it has been found that discriminatory conduct took place in the workplace, the respondent’s conduct in this case was not malicious or demeaning in nature. The evidence from the applicant concerning the effect of the respondent’s actions on him all related to the effect of his termination in June 2007, other than, as has been mentioned above, the discomfort that the applicant felt when religious incidents or issues came up during the course of his employment. Furthermore, there were no negative consequences to the applicant as a result of the respondent’s conduct during his employment. However, the applicant’s right to be free of discrimination in the workplace was infringed.

48I find that an award of $3500 in monetary compensation is appropriate in the circumstances to compensate him for the discrimination the applicant experienced during his employment.

49The applicant sought a future compliance remedy seeking the development of an anti-discrimination and harassment policy, human rights training for management, posting of the policy and distribution of the policy to each employee. I am not satisfied that the respondent understands the human rights issues involved and therefore some future compliance remedy is warranted. Having regard to the relatively small size of the company’s operation, the posting of a “Code card” (available from the Ontario Human Rights Commission) in a visible location in the workplace (such as a lunchroom) is appropriate, as is the development of a human rights workplace policy by a lawyer or consultant having expertise in human rights, which is to include a process by which employees are able to advance any human rights issues that they may have. A copy of this Decision is to be provided to the lawyer or consultant in advance of the preparation of the policy. Once the policy is concluded, it shall be delivered to all of the company’s employees, by no later than 6 months from the date of this Decision.

Order

50The Tribunal therefore orders the respondents jointly and severally to:

(a) pay to the applicant the sum of $3500 for loss arising out of the infringement of the Code, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect;

(b) post a “Code card” in a visible location in the workplace;

(c) engage a lawyer or consultant with expertise in human rights to develop a human rights policy which shall include a procedure for employees to advance their human rights issues;

(d) provide a copy of the policy to all company employees within 6 months of the date of this Decision;

(e) pay to the applicant pre-judgment interest (calculated from the date of the Complaint to the Commission) and post-judgment interest (calculated from 30 days from the date of this Decision) in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43, as amended, on the $3500. amount.