Melanie Shulman

The complainants, two transsexual women, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of sex after a plastic surgeon refused to perform cosmetic surgeries on them.

The surgeon, who specialized in genital and breast surgeries for non-transsexual patients, determined he was not qualified to perform the requested procedures on transsexual patients due to anatomical differences and the need for a specialized team approach.

The Tribunal found that while the refusal constituted prima facie discrimination, the respondents established a bona fide justification.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an individual medical professional to obtain significant new qualifications or substantially change their practice, as this would constitute undue hardship.

The complainant alleged that her former employer and holistic medicine instructor subjected her to years of forced sexual assaults, sexual harassment, and reprisals.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence of forced sexual assault to be unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, implausibilities, and the emergence of repressed memories only during her testimony.

However, the Tribunal found that a sexual relationship did occur during the complainant's employment, which was unwelcome and constituted sexual harassment and improper sexual solicitations under ss. 7(2) and 7(3)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The allegations of gender discrimination and reprisal were dismissed.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages.

Following a pre-hearing conference call, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision establishing a process to address preliminary objections raised by the respondents.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal should not hear the matter or that some allegations should be excluded.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant and the Commission to clarify the specific actions alleged to constitute discrimination, and set a timetable for written submissions, documentary evidence, and a one-day oral hearing to determine the preliminary issues.

The complainant alleged she was subjected to differential treatment and dismissed from her cleaner position because of her sex, and that the employer subsequently posted a discriminatory job advertisement seeking a 'maintenance man'.

The Tribunal found that the decision to terminate her employment was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including deteriorating performance and increased maintenance needs.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the employer's general manager inappropriately cited gender during the dismissal meeting and subsequently published a discriminatory job advertisement.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 in general damages for the discriminatory communication and advertisement, and ordered public interest remedies including the development of an anti-discrimination policy.