Alan D'Silva

The complainant in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment was served with criminal charges for attempting to obstruct justice and fraud, arising from alleged inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Commission and the complainant requested a stay of the human rights hearing to protect her against self-incrimination under the Charter.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the request, finding that s. 11(c) of the Charter did not apply because the human rights hearing was not a proceeding against the complainant.

The Board held that the complainant was a compellable witness and that the criminal court would determine the admissibility of her testimony.

The Board directed the hearing to proceed with the respondents' case before considering whether further re-cross-examination of the complainant on damages was appropriate.

The respondents sought an award of costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code following the dismissal of a complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainants acted in bad faith by being untruthful about matters central to the case and engaging in a malicious publicity campaign.

The Board also found the complaints were trivial, frivolous, and vexatious, and that the Commission acted irresponsibly in pursuing them.

Although the respondents established entitlement to costs, the Board declined to award non-legal costs or solicitor-and-client legal costs because the self-represented respondent deliberately exaggerated and misrepresented his time and expenses.

The Commission was ordered to pay the respondents' legal costs on a party-and-party basis, plus disbursements.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the complainants based on marital status, the Board of Inquiry assessed remedies.

The Board awarded special damages for lost wages, finding both complainants reasonably mitigated their damages, and declined to deduct social assistance benefits from the awards.

General damages of $5,000 were awarded to each complainant for loss of dignity and self-respect.

The Board declined to order reinstatement, interest, or costs, considering the respondent's status as a non-profit charitable organization.