Kim Twohig

The complainant, a security guard of Philippine extraction, alleged that the respondent hospital discriminated against him on the basis of race by denying him a promotion to Chief of Security, engaged in reprisals, and maintained a pattern of systemic discrimination against non-white employees.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant was not considered for the promotion due to his own arrogant, deceitful, and bizarre conduct, rather than his race.

The Board also found no evidence to support the allegations of reprisals or a pattern of systemic discrimination.

The complainant, an eleven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, used a ramp assist to bowl.

She qualified for a youth bowling tournament but was disqualified because the rules prohibited the use of mechanical devices to deliver the ball.

The Board of Inquiry found that the rule had a disproportionately damaging impact on physically disabled persons and that the ramp assist did not give the complainant an unfair competitive advantage.

The Board concluded that the complainant was denied equal treatment with respect to services because of her handicap.

The respondents were ordered to allow her to participate in competitive tournaments, to develop a rule accommodating young bowlers with hand or arm disabilities, and to pay $2,000 in damages for mental anguish.

The complainant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement from a previous sex discrimination complaint by failing to hire her as a Traffic By-Law Officer.

She also alleged that the hiring process constituted a reprisal and that psychological tests administered during the process contained discriminatory questions regarding family status and handicap.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the successful candidate was more qualified, that the hiring process was objective and not a reprisal, and that the psychological tests and interview questions did not infringe the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, a police officer with insulin-dependent diabetes, alleged discrimination and harassment based on handicap after the respondents placed him on restricted duties (prohibiting him from carrying a firearm or driving a police vehicle).

The Board of Inquiry found that between 1981 and 1984, the complainant's diabetes was uncontrolled, resulting in several severe hypoglycemic reactions while on duty.

The respondents' decision to restrict his duties was made in good faith to protect the safety of the public and the officer.

The Board concluded that the complainant was incapable of performing the essential duties of a police officer during that period, and the respondents reasonably accommodated him by maintaining his employment with full pay on restricted duties.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a highly competent word processing operator, was laid off shortly after returning from maternity leave during a company-wide staff reduction.

She alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, claiming the company assumed she would be less likely to remain a long-term employee because she had a young child.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the staff reduction was legitimate, the complainant's family status was a contributing factor in the decision to select her for layoff.

The Board ordered the respondents to compensate the complainant for lost wages and awarded $500 in general damages for mental anguish.

The complainant, a police constable, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) when her employer required her to wear a uniform and perform regular duties, and subsequently failed to assign her alternative work during her pregnancy.

The Board of Inquiry found no discrimination in the uniform and regular duty requirements during the early stages of her first pregnancy.

However, the Board found that the employer discriminated against the complainant by failing to offer her available alternative work (substituting for absent clerk-typists) while she was on a leave of absence, an opportunity regularly afforded to male constables.

A second complaint regarding her second pregnancy was dismissed, as the employer had offered reasonable accommodation.

The employer was ordered to compensate the complainant for lost wages during the period alternative work should have been offered.

The complainant, a plant supervisor with eight years of service, was summarily dismissed by the general manager.

The Board of Inquiry found that the general manager harboured animosity towards the complainant because she was a woman, and that her sex was a material element in the decision to dismiss her.

The corporate respondent and the general manager were found jointly and severally liable for sex discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $24,240 for lost wages, $2,500 for mental anguish, and interest.

The complainant, a police officer with diabetes, alleged discrimination after being placed on restricted duties indefinitely following several insulin reactions.

The respondent Board of Commissioners of Police brought a preliminary motion arguing the board of inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was amended to include additional facts and respondents, constituting a second complaint that bypassed the statutory investigation process.

The respondents also argued that decisions made under the Police Act could not be challenged under the Human Rights Code.

The board of inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Commission followed appropriate procedures, the respondents had adequate notice of the allegations and suffered no prejudice, and decisions under the Police Act must conform to the Human Rights Code.