Michael W. Bader

The complainant, a black Canadian welder of Jamaican origin, alleged that the respondent company discriminated against him by refusing to refer him for work on a project in Jamaica.

Despite successfully completing the required welding tests and being assured he would be selected, the complainant was bypassed in favour of white welders.

The respondent argued that the selection was based on work quality and that the decision was made outside Ontario.

The Board of Inquiry rejected the respondent's explanations, finding that the decision was influenced by the complainant's race and colour, particularly following the company's negative experience with another black worker.

The Board upheld the complaint and retained jurisdiction to determine the remedy.

The appellant police constable appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

Due to errors in the hearing transcript, counsel for both parties agreed to vary the penalty rather than remit the matter for a rehearing.

The Commission allowed the appeal on consent and varied the penalty to two and one-half days' loss of pay.

The complainant, a black man from Jamaica, alleged that his employment was terminated during his probationary period due to racial discrimination.

The respondents maintained that the dismissal was based exclusively on unsatisfactory work performance.

The Board of Inquiry weighed the credibility of the witnesses and accepted the respondents' evidence that there were problems with the complainant's work and attitude.

The Board found no evidence of discriminatory patterns or racial bias motivating the dismissal, concluding that the termination was due to unsatisfactory work performance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, the respondent, during her brief period of employment.

The Board of Inquiry admitted similar fact evidence from another former employee who testified to similar unwanted advances.

The Board found that the respondent physically abused the complainant through sexual harassment, which amounted to constructive dismissal and a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $375 for lost wages and $750 in general damages, write a letter of apology, and cease and desist from future sexual harassment.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Act and sentenced to resign or be summarily dismissed.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the appellant argued that the charge sheet was a nullity because it was signed by an officer who was not properly designated under the Police Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that the power to sign the charge sheet could not be delegated as a purely administrative task, and dismissed the charge.

In the alternative, the Commission held that the penalty of dismissal was too severe given the appellant's excellent prior record and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 18 months.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police constable, appealed his conviction for deceit and the resulting penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant's undercover vehicle was involved in a hit-and-run accident, and he subsequently made an unsigned, false entry in the detachment's Occurrence Book to conceal the vehicle's involvement.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the evidence supported the conclusion that the entry was made to deceive and interfere with the investigation.

The penalty was also upheld, as the appellant's actions constituted a severe breach of trust that compromised his integrity.

The complainants alleged racial discrimination and reprisal in their employment and subsequent termination.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a prior arbitration award dismissing their grievances rendered the matter res judicata.

The Board of Inquiry rejected the res judicata argument, finding that the parties and subject matter under the Human Rights Code differ from those in a labour arbitration.

On the merits, the Board found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination or reprisal, concluding that the conflicts arose from interpersonal issues and insubordination rather than race.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a university student of Chinese ancestry, alleged that the respondent denied him rental accommodation because of his race.

The respondent claimed she was out of town and had no vacancies at the time.

The Board of Inquiry found the respondent's evidence to be evasive and untruthful, accepting the complainant's evidence that he was told over the phone that the respondent would not rent to Chinese people.

The Board concluded the respondent contravened s. 3(1)(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code and ordered her to pay $150 in general damages, write a letter of apology, and provide assurances of future compliance.

The complainant alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against her on the basis of race by refusing to allow her to sublet her rented trailer to a couple because of the prospective sub-tenant's native ancestry.

The Board of Inquiry found that the landlords had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for refusing the sublet, including the prospective sub-tenants being unmarried, having a child (which violated the landlords' rules due to lack of laundry facilities), and the abusive behaviour of one of the prospective sub-tenants.

The Board concluded that the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that discrimination occurred, and the complaint was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He had failed to promptly respond to a dispatch regarding speeding trucks, instead attempting to reassign the duty to another officer in an unauthorized manner.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the purported transfer of duties did not constitute a lawful excuse and that the appellant failed to promptly and diligently perform his assigned duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of the loss of three rest days was upheld.