For Further Information Robert Streich Information Officer (416) 314-4513
November 24, 1998
For Immediate Release
Human Rights Commission Sends 25 Complaints for Hearing
TORONTO - At its last meeting, the Ontario Human Rights Commission decided that there was enough evidence to warrant sending 25 cases to boards of inquiry for hearings:
- Eight of the complaints are against Markham Stouffville Hospital filed by Ms. Wood, Ms. McMahon, Ms. George, Ms. Bushby, Ms. Clennon, Ms. Van Halteren, Ms. Newman, and Ms. Hurlburt. They claim that their religious beliefs prevent them from participating in abortion procedures and that the hospital's refusal to modify their duties as obstetrical and pediatric nurses constituted a refusal to accommodate the complainants on the ground of creed.
- Three cases against the District of Halton and Mississauga Ambulance Service by Mr. Hodge, Mr. Armes, and Mr. Williams deal with the ground of handicap in the area of employment. In these cases, a board of inquiry will be asked to determine if it is discriminatory to prorate vacation time following time away because of work-related injuries.
- In two other employment-related cases, Dofasco Inc. is named as a corporate respondent by Ms. Jeffrey and Mr. Widomski. Dofasco is alleged to have failed to accommodate persons with disabilities resulting from workplace injuries. Under the Code, injuries or disabilities for which benefits are claimed under workers' compensation legislation are considered to be handicaps.
- In Brillinger vs. Imaging Excellence, the Board of Inquiry will determine whether Mr. Brillinger was discriminated against when Imaging Excellence refused to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. The issues raised include sexual orientation and religious belief.
- In Rock vs. Hound & Heather et al., Ms. Rock alleges that she was refused service in a restaurant while breastfeeding her child. She alleges that she was ordered to leave the premises.
- In Brown vs. Famous Players Inc., Mr. Brown alleges that an Ottawa-area cinema is not accessible to persons with disabilities and that it fails to accommodate such persons in a manner that respects their dignity.
- In Marques vs. Portuguese Social Services Centre, Kainz vs. Dr. Marius O. Mokwe and Goutzioulis vs. National Security Technologies Inc. the complainants allege sexual solicitation and sexual harassment in the area of employment.
- Other cases are Miller vs. 1138859 Ontario Inc., operating as Stonewalls Steakhouse and Bar (marital status), Shepherd vs. DKM Hinge Ltd. and DKM Manufacturing Ltd. (harassment, age and discrimination by association); Caron vs. c/o The Housesitters Canada (sex); Pritchard vs. Factory Mutual System (handicap); Ruddick vs. Seventy-Five Scarborough Road Ltd. (family status in housing); Ribic vs. Three R Management Ltd. (receipt of public assistance in housing).
The Commissioners of the Ontario Human Rights Commission meet regularly throughout the year to review the results of investigations into complaints. Where the Commission does not settle the complaint and it appears to the Commission that the procedure is appropriate and the evidence warrants an inquiry, the Commission may refer the subject matter of the complaint to the board of inquiry. The board of inquiry is an independent administrative tribunal.
Further details and hearing dates for the cases can be obtained by contacting the Board of Inquiry Office at (416) 314-0004.
Vous pouvez également obtenir ce communiqué en français. Si vous voulez recevoir ce communiqué en français ou si vous voulez qu'on ajoute un nom à notre liste d'envoi, composez le (416) 314-4507.