Prabhu Rajan

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed and solicited by the Chief Financial Officer of her employer during her probationary period, and subsequently dismissed for refusing his advances.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did engage in sexual harassment and solicitation, violating the Human Rights Code, and awarded $17,500 in general damages and damages for mental anguish.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the CEO, finding that the decision to terminate the complainant was made prior to the culminating incident of harassment, was based on poor sales performance, and was not tainted by discrimination.

The complainant, a single mother, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of family status by refusing to rent her an apartment because she had a nine-year-old daughter.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondents' refusal to rent the apartment constituted discrimination under section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also held that asking for the age of prospective co-occupants on a rental application form is prima facie discrimination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,230 in special damages and $5,000 in general damages, and to remove the age-related question from their application forms.

The applicant moved to strike an affidavit and attachments filed by the respondent on an application for judicial review.

The materials were not before the Commissioner.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that the record on judicial review should essentially be the material before the decision-maker, and the affidavit improperly sought to expand the record regarding the applicant's conduct rather than addressing jurisdictional error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Commissioner's conclusion that the complaint could be more appropriately dealt with under the Labour Relations Act and that the applicant had already engaged in mediation during the arbitration process.

The court held that the Commissioner's decision was not patently unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondents.

Alicia Payne, a Black woman, was hired through an employment agency to work as a booth receptionist for Otsuka Pharmaceutical at an international conference organized by Intertask and the Canadian Ophthalmological Society.

When she arrived, Otsuka's representative rejected her, stating he wanted "other girls please" and expressing concern about the "company's image".

The Board found that the representative discriminated against the complainant because she is Black.

The Board also found that the conference organizers had a duty not to condone or further the discrimination.

By conducting an inadequate investigation, unreasonably concluding it was a "misunderstanding", and assisting the representative in finding a replacement, they breached this duty.

The Board awarded general and mental anguish damages against all respondents, along with public interest remedies.

Following a finding of liability for discrimination based on disability and reprisal, the Board of Inquiry determined the appropriate remedies.

The complainant, an independent contractor who was terminated after being diagnosed with ALS and falsely accused of theft, was awarded $20,000 for the infringement of his right to contract, $12,415 in special damages, and $20,000 for reprisal.

The Board declined to award legal costs, finding no statutory authority to do so under the Human Rights Code in these circumstances, and declined to order public interest remedies.

The complainant, an independent contractor diagnosed with ALS, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents treated the complainant differently due to his deteriorating health, including reducing his hours and removing his telephone.

The respondents terminated his contract, ostensibly for stealing propane, but the Board found they were wilfully blind to a plausible explanation because they wanted to terminate him due to his disability.

The Board also found the respondents committed reprisal by threatening criminal prosecution and initiating a Small Claims Court action against the complainant after he filed his human rights complaint.

The parties were given time to mediate a remedy.

The respondent employee was discharged by the appellant employer following an altercation.

A labour arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The employee also filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

A Board of Inquiry found the employer liable for discrimination and ordered remedies including damages and reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the employer's appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the human rights complaint under the Weber framework, nor did issue estoppel apply.

However, the Court set aside the reinstatement order, finding it inappropriate given the 11-year delay, the employee's subsequent comparable employment, and the Board's failure to give adequate weight to the arbitrator's decision.

The complainant brought a motion to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The Board of Inquiry considered whether it 'appeared' that the prospective respondents infringed the complainant's rights under the Human Rights Code and whether adding them would cause substantial prejudice.

The Board added the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, Intertask Group of Companies, and Leanne Akehurst as party respondents, finding a sufficient nexus to the alleged discrimination.

The Board declined to add the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Hubert Drouin, and Paul Akehurst due to a lack of evidence of their involvement.

The Board also declined to add Manpower Services Canada Limited, finding that the five-year delay in providing notice caused substantial prejudice to its ability to mount a full defence.

The complainant's arguments regarding the Commission's pre-referral conduct and constitutional violations were dismissed as being outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The complainant brought a motion to add the President and CEO of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent to her human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal termination.

The respondents failed to attend the motion or file responding materials.

The Board of Inquiry found the motion record was properly served and granted the request to add the CEO as a party, noting his involvement in the termination decision and the lack of prejudice.

The Board also directed the respondents to provide disclosure and file pleadings, warning that failure to do so could result in the exclusion of their evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by agreeing to withdraw his classification grievance as part of a Social Contract negotiation with the government.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the events occurred before the Labour Relations Act applied to Crown employees.

The Board further held that even if it had jurisdiction, the complaint was untimely due to a 20-month delay, and on the merits, the union did not act arbitrarily in balancing the interests of individual grievors against the preservation of jobs for the bargaining unit as a whole.