Jennifer Scott

The intervenor requested an adjournment fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled consultation due to counsel's illness.

The applicant requested costs if the adjournment was granted, noting it was the third adjournment in two months.

The Board granted the adjournment but denied the request for costs, consistent with its jurisprudence.

A new date was set for the consultation.

The Ministry of Correctional Services applied for judicial review to prevent a Board of Inquiry from considering whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the implementation of its previous human rights order.

The Board had found the workplace to be poisoned and retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the Board should first be permitted to determine the extent of its retained jurisdiction and the relevance of the new allegations to the implementation of its remedy.

The complainant, an employee of the respondent, went on medical leave due to reactive depression and chronic fatigue syndrome.

When her long-term disability benefits ended, her doctor cleared her to return to work with restrictions.

The respondent failed to clarify these restrictions, did not consider her for contract or general clerical work, and required her to compete for a position over a year later.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent directly discriminated against the complainant on the basis of handicap by failing to accommodate her return to work.

The respondent was ordered to pay lost wages, provide service recognition credits, and pay $10,000 in general damages.

The complainant, a part-time firefighter with a visual impairment, applied for a full-time position.

He was denied employment because his visual impairment prevented him from obtaining a class F licence, which was required to operate the town's ambulance.

The Board of Inquiry found that the requirement to hold a class F licence was prima facie discriminatory.

The respondents failed to establish that the requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement, as they did not properly consider whether the complainant could be accommodated by performing firefighting duties only, without undue hardship.

The Board concluded that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of handicap, the complainant sought a remedy that included the development of an accommodation policy for the respondent.

The adjudicator granted the firefighters' association leave to intervene to make submissions confined to the issue of the accommodation policy, recognizing its significant interest in the terms of such an order.

The Ancaster Professional Firefighters' Association sought leave to intervene in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of handicap.

The Commission requested a remedy that included the development of an accommodation policy for the respondent.

The adjudicator granted the Association leave to intervene to make oral and written submissions confined to the issue of the accommodation policy, recognizing its significant interest in the terms of such an order.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought an application for judicial review of an interim decision made by the Board of Inquiry regarding the production of records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing hearing before the Board.

The Court held that the Board's decision was a reasonable exercise of its discretion at a preliminary stage, particularly in applying the balancing test from A.M. v. Ryan and considering the confidentiality undertaking in place.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer against the Commission.

The Board of Inquiry previously found that the respondents discriminated against the complainants on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

In this decision on remedy, the respondents argued that an order compelling them to provide such services would violate the individual respondent's freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the Board held that while the order would infringe the respondent's freedom of religion, the limit was demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter to achieve the pressing and substantial objective of eradicating discrimination in the provision of public services.

The Board ordered the respondents to provide the printing services and to pay $5,000 in damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The complainants, Ray Brillinger and the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, alleged discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sexual orientation after the respondents, Scott Brockie and Imaging Excellence Inc., refused to provide printing services for the Archives.

The respondent Brockie refused the services due to his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Archives is a 'person' under the Human Rights Code and that the respondents directly discriminated against the Archives and indirectly discriminated against Brillinger on the basis of sexual orientation and association.

The corporate respondent was held liable for the actions of its president.

The respondents sought an adjournment or stay of the Board of Inquiry proceedings pending their application for judicial review of an interim decision that recognized the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives as a party complainant.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the adjudicator found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the respondents would not suffer irreparable harm from proceeding.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing to avoid fragmentation and delay, particularly given the full right of appeal available under the Human Rights Code.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning workplace harassment and discrimination.

The complainant alleged further acts of reprisal and a continued poisoned environment.

The Board ruled that compensation must include a gross-up for income tax purposes to satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Furthermore, the Board determined it retained jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued discrimination and reprisals related to the implementation of its orders, distinguishing its remedial role from disciplinary proceedings.

The complainant, a police constable, requested light duties during the latter stages of her pregnancy due to safety concerns for herself and her fetus.

The Police Services Board denied her request, relying on a policy that prohibited modified work programs, and forced her to take an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board of Inquiry found that the policy constituted both direct and adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex.

The respondents failed to establish that the policy was a bona fide occupational qualification or that they had accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

The complainant was awarded lost wages and general damages for mental anguish.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to stay the human rights complaint on the grounds of abuse of process, and sought disclosure of various Commission documents relevant to that motion.

The Board of Inquiry held that it had jurisdiction to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Board ordered the Commission to disclose specific documents, including instructions regarding the winding down of a Special Task Force, the investigation file of a related complaint, and certain employment details of Commission staff involved in the investigation.

The Board declined to order the issuance of summonses duces tecum to prove the authenticity of documents from the Commission's investigation file.

The complainant, a 17-year-old female employee, alleged she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and her supervisor during her brief employment at a building supplies company.

The Board of Inquiry found that the supervisor directly participated in and condoned a series of sexually explicit and derogatory comments, creating a poisoned work environment.

Applying the Robichaud principle, the Board held the corporate respondent liable for the supervisor's conduct.

The complainant was awarded $17,010 in total damages, including compensation for lost wages, loss of the right to equality in employment, mental anguish, and pre-judgment interest.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, who continuously proposed marriage, touched her inappropriately, and changed her hours of work after she rejected his advances.

After she filed a human rights complaint, the employer sent her a threatening card with play money, which she perceived as a threat to her life.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer's conduct constituted sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant special damages for lost wages and a missed bonus, general damages for mental anguish, and ordered the employer to attend human rights training.

The complainant, a Black woman from Jamaica, alleged that the superintendent of her apartment building harassed her and her children because of their race.

The superintendent issued multiple notices of early termination for alleged loitering and directed racial slurs at the complainant.

The Board of Inquiry found that the superintendent's conduct was racially motivated and constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Board also held that the employer, Effort Trust Realty Company, was liable for the superintendent's actions as he was part of the 'directing mind' of the corporation.

The employer was ordered to pay $3,500 in general damages.

The complainant was hired as a medical secretary but was dismissed after two and a half days when the respondent doctor concluded she suffered from grand mal seizures due to her epilepsy.

The respondent believed she would be unable to handle emergency situations.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to determine the complainant's actual medical condition, which involved only simple partial seizures that did not affect her work.

The respondent could not rely on the bona fide occupational qualification defence under section 17 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay $1,080 in special damages and $2,000 in general damages for the wilful infringement of the complainant's rights.