Steven J. Gearing

The applicant, a unionized worker, suffered a chemical burn at work resulting in a temporary rash.

He alleged that his subsequent layoff was a reprisal for seeking accommodation, that he was denied an apprenticeship due to his disability, that the employer failed to accommodate him by assigning shop work instead of office work, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and the company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal, apprenticeship, and accommodation claims, finding the layoff was due to a work shortage and the accommodation was appropriate.

However, the Tribunal found that two teasing comments made by a supervisor about the applicant's skin condition constituted harassment under the Code.

Given the trivial nature of the comments and lack of lasting impact, the Tribunal awarded $100 in damages.

The Tribunal considered whether multiple human rights applications filed by two applicants against various respondents should be heard together.

The applications alleged reprisals for asserting rights under the Human Rights Code and involved the same facts, witnesses, and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal ordered that the reprisal applications be heard together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, while keeping one unrelated application regarding long-term care placement separate.