Joan Haberman

The complainant, who has a disability resulting from a head injury that causes a limp and slurred speech, was refused service at an LCBO store because employees perceived him to be intoxicated.

The Board of Inquiry found that the refusal did not constitute direct discrimination, as the complainant failed to clarify his condition when given the opportunity.

However, the Board found that the LCBO's application of the Liquor Licence Act prohibition against serving intoxicated persons constituted constructive (adverse effect) discrimination against persons with disabilities whose symptoms mimic intoxication.

The LCBO failed to establish a defence under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code because it lacked adequate training programs to accommodate such persons.

The Board declined to award general damages due to the complainant's conduct but recommended the LCBO improve its training.

The complainant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of sex by refusing to hire her as a warehouse picker/packer and subsequently terminating her employment during her probationary period.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' refusal to hire the complainant was motivated by a determination not to have a female employee in the warehouse.

The Board also found that her subsequent hiring and termination were not bona fide and constituted further discrimination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $28,635 for lost wages and $2,500 for mental anguish.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a sporting goods store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions rejecting the same Charter arguments, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his involvement in secondary employment without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that section 61 was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty, relying on its previous decisions which rejected identical Charter challenges to the regulation.

The complainant, a black man of East Indian origin, alleged racial discrimination when he was not considered for a head painter position at the auto body shop where he worked.

The Board of Inquiry found that the shop foreman, who exercised managerial functions, failed to consider the complainant for the position because of his race, preferring instead a less qualified white candidate.

This tainted recommendation was implemented by the owner, making the corporate respondent liable.

The complainant quit due to the resulting loss of income and prestige.

The Board ordered the corporate respondent and the foreman to pay damages for lost wages and general damages, but dismissed the complaint against the owner in his personal capacity.