Russell Juriansz

Following a finding of liability against the corporate respondent for racial harassment and discriminatory termination, the respondents applied for costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that costs were warranted because portions of the complaint (discriminatory job training and assignment) and the complaints against the individual respondents were dismissed due to the Commission's delay.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the application, holding that s. 41(4) requires the entire complaint to be dismissed before costs can be awarded.

Furthermore, the Board found that even if it had discretion, it would not award costs because the delay caused undue hardship to the complainant as well, and there was no evidence that the complaints against the individual respondents were trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Following a finding that the complainant was subjected to racial harassment and discriminatory discharge, the Board of Inquiry determined the appropriate remedies.

The Board ordered the respondent employer to reinstate the complainant, finding that reinstatement was the only remedy that would properly serve as restitution.

The employer was also ordered to provide retraining and employee assistance counselling.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost wages and benefits up to the date he found comparable employment, less the time for justified disciplinary suspensions.

Additionally, the Board awarded $20,000 in general damages for the infringement of the complainant's rights and $10,000 for mental anguish caused by the employer's reckless contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Board declined to award legal costs, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction, but did award pre-judgment interest on the damages.

The complainant, an East Indian man from Guyana, alleged that he was subjected to a racially poisoned work environment at the Ford Motor Company plant in Windsor and was ultimately discharged discriminatorily.

The Board of Inquiry found that the workplace was saturated with racist graffiti and slurs, and that management failed to take adequate steps to address the harassment, rendering the employer liable.

The Board further held that the complainant's disciplinary record, which included insubordination and altercations, was provoked by the discriminatory environment.

The employer's decision to discharge the complainant without considering this context was found to be unlawful.

Jurisdiction was retained to determine the appropriate remedy.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of a human rights complaint after failing to provide the unrepresented complainant with disclosure of witness statements.

The complainant sought time to retain independent legal counsel.

Despite concerns over the protracted delays in the proceedings, the adjudicator granted the adjournment to ensure the complainant's right to full participation and cross-examination, warning that no further adjournments would be permitted for this purpose.

The corporate and individual respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaint on the basis of issue estoppel and res judicata.

The respondents argued that a prior labour arbitration decision, which upheld the complainant's termination under a collective agreement, precluded the human rights proceedings.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that there was no identity of issues or parties between the labour arbitration and the human rights complaint.

The Board noted that the arbitration award did not address racial discrimination or the Human Rights Code, and that the Commission was not a party to the arbitration.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or stay a human rights complaint, arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to make sufficient efforts to settle the complaint, and that delay, inadequate disclosure, and biased investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Commission did make efforts to settle and held that, in any event, failure to conciliate is not a condition precedent to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board also found that while there was considerable delay, it did not render a fair hearing impossible.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a group insurance underwriter, alleged that she was denied permanent employment and subsequently discharged because of her sexual orientation.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the initial delay in offering full-time employment could not be directly attributed to the respondents due to the death of the responsible manager, the decision to terminate her employment was tainted by discrimination.

Although the employer's requirement to transfer the complainant's partner to avoid a conflict of interest was reasonable, the precipitous withdrawal of the job offer and immediate discharge were influenced by the complainant's open homosexuality and the homophobic attitudes of senior management.

The respondents were ordered to pay special and general damages.

The individual respondent brought a preliminary motion to stay human rights proceedings against him, arguing that an extensive delay by the Commission infringed his rights under s. 7 of the Charter and breached the principles of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that s. 7 of the Charter does not apply to remedial human rights proceedings because neither the potential consequences nor the nature of the proceedings jeopardize the liberty or security interests of the respondent.

The Board also found no actual prejudice to the respondent's ability to mount a full answer and defence, and no procedural unfairness amounting to a breach of natural justice.

The individual respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board of Inquiry step aside because the substance of settlement negotiations had been disclosed to the Board during related judicial review proceedings.

The Commission argued the disclosure was necessary to respond to the respondent's allegations of delay and failure to pursue settlement.

The Board granted the motion and stepped aside, finding that the disclosure of settlement details was unilateral and unnecessary, and that preserving the public policy of encouraging settlements required adjudicators to remain unaware of such negotiations.

The appellant, a cleaner at a military base, was sexually harassed by her supervisor.

She filed a complaint against the supervisor and her employer under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act contemplates the imposition of liability on employers for all acts of their employees in the course of employment.

The Court reasoned that the Act is remedial, not punitive, and its objectives would be stultified if remedies were not available against the employer, who alone can provide a healthy work environment.

The appellant, a Sikh employee, was dismissed for refusing to wear a hard hat as required by a company safety rule, because his religion forbade wearing anything other than a turban.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice and ordered reinstatement.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the hard hat rule was a bona fide occupational requirement under s. 14(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Court found that where a bona fide occupational requirement is established, there is no duty to accommodate the individual employee.

The appellant filed complaints of discrimination with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

An investigator recommended the complaints be rejected, but the appellant was not provided with the investigator's report or the substance of the case against her before the Commission dismissed her complaints.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that procedural fairness requires the Commission to disclose the substance of the case to the complainant and afford them an opportunity to make informed submissions before a decision is made.