Joanne D. Rosen

The appeal concerned whether a Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction over an employment discrimination complaint after the Commission ceased participating following referral.

The court held that the complainant retained independent party status under the Human Rights Code, that the Commission's role changed upon referral, and that the Board of Inquiry was an autonomous tribunal required to conduct the hearing.

The phrase granting the Commission carriage of the complaint was interpreted as procedural rather than substantive.

The Divisional Court's contrary ruling was set aside and the matter was remitted for further hearing.

The complainant, a lesbian in a conjugal relationship, applied to change her surname to a hyphenated version of her and her partner's surnames under the Change of Name Act.

The Office of the Registrar General refused to process the application because the Act's spousal election provision only applied to opposite-sex couples.

The Board of Inquiry found that this refusal constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of services, contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Board ordered the Registrar General to process the name change application and awarded the complainant $500 in general damages.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.

The complainant, an occupational therapist with multiple sclerosis, was denied vacation leave and subsequently terminated after she took the leave despite the denial.

The hospital cited her extensive absenteeism due to her disability and pregnancy-related illness as reasons for denying the leave.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's disability was a factor in the decision to deny her vacation leave, which constituted discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board rejected the application of the labour relations 'work now, grieve later' rule in the human rights context.

The hospital was ordered to pay compensation for lost wages and general damages, and to amend the complainant's personnel file.