Lauren Bates

The respondent brought preliminary motions to stay a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at a Sears store, following the death of the complainant.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, the issue was moot, delay prejudiced the case, and proceeding was an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all motions, finding that the Trustee Act permits the estate to continue the action, the public interest prevents the issue from being moot, facts could still be established through other witnesses, and the Commission's decision to proceed despite an investigator's recommendation was not an abuse of process.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, the owner of a photography business, who repeatedly asked her to pose nude, made sexual advances, and engaged in unnecessary touching.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to delay, arguing violations of the Charter and abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the preliminary motion, finding no substantial prejudice.

On the merits, the Board found the complainant credible and held that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and sexual solicitation under the Human Rights Code.

The Board awarded the complainant $2,677.50 for lost wages and $2,000 in general damages, and ordered the respondent to comply with monitoring and posting requirements.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap after he was terminated for falsifying a pre-employment medical questionnaire.

He had failed to disclose his asthma and allergies when hired.

When he later requested accommodation to avoid a polluted work area, the employer discovered the falsification and terminated him pursuant to its policy.

The Board of Inquiry found that the termination was based solely on the falsification of the medical form, not on the complainant's disability, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a waitress at a strip bar, was fired by the manager when she was four months pregnant.

The manager admitted to firing her because of her pregnancy, citing concerns about fights breaking out and potential lawsuits if she were injured.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was fired because of her pregnancy, violating the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to establish that not being pregnant was a bona fide occupational qualification for the job.

The manager and the corporate respondent were found jointly and severally liable for the discrimination, and were ordered to pay special and general damages.