Jean Chin Hang Iu

The complainant, a probationary labourer, lacerated his hand while off work and requested light duties.

The respondent terminated his employment immediately upon receiving the request, claiming performance and attendance issues.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by rushing to judgment without making inquiries.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, $4,760 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement a human rights policy and training.

Two complainants, common-law spouses, filed human rights complaints against their employer.

The first complainant alleged sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal by the company owner.

The Tribunal dismissed her complaint, finding her evidence inconsistent and not credible.

The second complainant alleged his employment was terminated because of his marital relationship with the first complainant after she raised her allegations.

The Tribunal upheld his complaint, finding the employer precipitously terminated his contract based on his partner's behaviour rather than his own conduct.

The employer was ordered to pay the second complainant $3,000 in compensation for injury to dignity and $6,340 in restitution for lost wages.

The complainant, a bartender with an anxiety disorder, alleged that her manager harassed and discriminated against her on the basis of her disability, ultimately forcing her to resign.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the manager's public comments about her mental health, fabrication of reasons for her absences, and reduction of her shifts constituted discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in general damages but denied the claim for special damages due to insufficient medical evidence linking her ongoing inability to work to the discrimination.

The corporate respondent was also ordered to post a notice regarding human rights in the workplace.

The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.

The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.

The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.

To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging harassment and discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Commission requested a written hearing.

The Tribunal previously ordered the Commission to serve the corporate respondent at its mailing address.

The Commission provided evidence of service on 'Michael Williamson', but the complainant's affidavit and Commission's submissions referred to a manager named 'Mike Williams'.

Concerned that the corporate respondent may not have received proper notice, the Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide written submissions explaining the discrepancy and detailing its efforts to serve the appropriate representative.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Registrar under the Business Names Act to cancel the registration of business names containing his surname, registered by the respondent company.

The applicant argued the respondent lacked his written consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that an ongoing civil action between the parties regarding the sale of the applicant's business provided an adequate alternative remedy to determine the contractual right to use the name.