• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Capital Projects Energy Funds & Finance Mining View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management ESG Strategy and Solutions Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events
New Energy Economy Series Business Law Talks Podcast Economic Outlook
ESG & the CIO Subscribe
People
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
About
Offices
News
Careers
Insights
Law Students
Events
Search
Alumni
Payments
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Human Rights Damages on the Rise?

February 20, 2014

Written By Ranjan K. Agarwal

In the Report of the Ontario Human Rights Review 2012, Andrew Pinto recommended that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario "reconsider its current approach to general damages awards in cases where discrimination is proven. The monetary range of these awards should be significantly increased."

Prior to legislative amendments in 2006, damages awards for mental anguish at the Tribunal were capped at $10,000. Under the current provisions, the Tribunal may make any order for compensation, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. Pinto acknowledges that most observers believe that monetary damages would increase as a result. But his report found that damages remained in the $500-$15,000 range, with exceptional awards ranging from $25,000-$40,000.

The Tribunal may be listening. On December 4, 2013, the Tribunal awarded a total of $71,000 in general damages and $27,592 in lost income to three applicants who it found were subject to racial and religious discrimination.

The applicants were employed in the kitchen at Le Papillon on the Park, a French restaurant in Toronto. They are all practicing Muslims”they do not eat pork and fast during Ramadan. They allege that the restaurant owners forced them to eat pork dishes and eat during Ramadan. They also alleged that the owners refused to let them speak Bengali, take time off at Eid and then threatened to replace them with "white" staff. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicants, the owners and a number of employees and concluded that the restaurant did discriminate against the Applicants.

Though the damages awards are, in and of themselves, noteworthy because of the amount, I believe the more interesting fact is that the Tribunal awarded the Applicants what they requested. So, it's conceivable, that the awards might have been even higher if the Applicants had requested larger damages.

Download PDF

Fall 2022 Economic Outlook: Managing Risks and Taking Action

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Ontario Court Refuses to Certify Class Proceeding [...]

February 08, 2023
       

Blog

Competition Act Review Threshold Remains Same for [...]

February 07, 2023
       

Blog

Land Rich, Cash Poor: The Impacts of the PPCLA and [...]

February 06, 2023
       

Blog

What Canada's New Forced Labour Reporting Law (Bill [...]

February 06, 2023
       

Blog

Alberta Court Confirms Exclusive Jurisdiction of Labour [...]

February 03, 2023
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
  • History
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2023. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones