Paula Rusak

The applicant, a welder, suffered a back injury and returned to modified work.

After complaining of ongoing back pain that affected his productivity, the respondent employer sent him home, claiming it needed to assess the suitability of his work.

The employer failed to take reasonable steps to conduct this assessment or explore other accommodations, leaving the applicant out of work indefinitely.

The Tribunal found that the employer breached its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to initiate the accommodation process, pay $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and compensate the applicant for lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the late allegations but allowed one timely allegation to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment during her graduate studies.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation and signed minutes of settlement.

The complainant subsequently refused to sign the final disposition form, arguing she was misled during mediation regarding the respondent's responsibility for a stipend shortfall.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to set aside the settlement, noting the complainant was represented by counsel during mediation and actively pursued the stipend issue before agreeing to the settlement.

The complaint was disposed of pursuant to section 40 of the Code.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and union alleging discrimination based on disability regarding his return from medical leave and subsequent lay-off.

The respondents sought to dismiss the applications as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement releasing them from all claims.

The applicant contended he lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the legal consequences of the settlement when he signed it.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity and concluded he freely agreed to the settlement.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his childcare responsibilities and forced him to resign.

The applicant had taken on an extra shift that conflicted with his every-other-weekend childcare access.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to clearly communicate his need for accommodation and that his regular schedule did not interfere with his childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant resigned due to personal pressure rather than an ultimatum from the employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a South East Indian man, alleged that his employment was terminated due to subtle discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he was incapable of performing the job despite extensive training.

The Tribunal found no evidence of differential treatment or racial discrimination, noting that the employer's decision was rational and based on performance issues.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions.

The Commission had declined to deal with her sexual harassment and discrimination complaints under s. 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, stating they were more appropriately dealt with under the Labour Relations Act through her union grievance.

The Court of Appeal found the Commission's decision patently unreasonable because the arbitrator had not actually dealt with the human rights issues, and the Commission failed to assess appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

The Court also found the Commission misunderstood its reconsideration power under s. 37 by requiring new facts.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Commission.

The complainant alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her during a visit to her apartment and subsequently engaged in acts of reprisal when she rejected his advances.

She resigned due to stress and later sought re-employment, which the employer refused.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the sexual harassment and supervisor reprisal complaints, finding the supervisor's version of events more credible.

However, the Board found that the employer and its human resources director engaged in reprisal by refusing to re-hire the complainant without properly investigating her sexual harassment complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages.

At the hearing of a human rights complaint, the parties advised the Board of Inquiry that a settlement had been reached.

The complainant confirmed satisfaction with the settlement terms, agreed not to pursue the complaint further, and agreed to a five-year confidentiality clause regarding the settlement and allegations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission elected not to present additional evidence.

Based on the settlement and the parties' statements, the Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging race discrimination in employment, arguing that the Commission failed to meet statutory conditions precedent and that the delay and lack of particulars amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry held that it lacked general jurisdiction to review the Commission's pre-inquiry procedures, but could intervene if procedural failures amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board found that the combination of the complainant's delay, the Commission's delay, and the lack of particulars for certain allegations seriously prejudiced the respondents' ability to defend themselves.

Consequently, the vague allegations were stricken from the complaint.

The Board also granted the Commission's motion to amend the complaint and the respondents' motion to quash a premature summons for documents.

Five female office employees filed a complaint alleging sex discrimination after their employer, F.W. Woolworth Ltd., froze their wages while granting increases to other staff, including male warehouse workers.

The employer argued the freeze was based on an informal wage survey showing the complainants were paid above market rates for their positions.

The Board of Inquiry applied the Supreme Court's framework for adverse effect discrimination and found that while the complainants were treated differently, there was no evidence linking the wage freeze to their sex.

The complaint was dismissed as the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.