General Compensation (T5 Application)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-26
CLNP Page ID:	2019
Page Categories:	Personal Use Application (LTB)
Citation:	General Compensation (T5 Application), CLNP 2019, <https://rvt.link/1f>, retrieved on 2024-04-26
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/04/01

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

57 (3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

1. An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has incurred or will incur for a one-year period after vacating the rental unit.

1.1 An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant as general compensation in an amount not exceeding the equivalent of 12 months of the last rent charged to the former tenant. An order under this paragraph may be made regardless of whether the former tenant has incurred any actual expenses or whether an order is made under paragraph 2.

1.2 An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur.

2. An order for an abatement of rent.

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

4. Any other order that the Board considers appropriate. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (3); 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 9 (1).

Kara-Bibar v Al-Dulaimi, 2022 CanLII 86555 (ON LTB)

37. The Tenant’s testimony on this point was detailed and consistent and we have no reason to disbelieve him. We are persuaded by the Tenant’s testimony that he and his children experienced significant emotional distress as a result of the Landlord’s actions. Based on the evidence before us, and our knowledge of like similar cases, we find that an award of $2,000.00 is sufficient to recognize the emotional stress the Tenant and his family suffered as a result of the Landlord’s bad faith termination of tenancy. An order will issue accordingly.

Hendry v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board), 1980 CanLII 3901 (ON HRT)

[38] The result is that Ms. Hendry cannot expect to work for the LCBO. Her career expectations, perhaps unrealistic, have nevertheless been thwarted without having the chance that would have been provided by proper consideration of her application. She has suffered emotionally as a result of the failure of LCBO to abide by the Code, and has been insulted as a woman. As the solace available in these circumstances, both to make it clear to Ms. Hendry that her unfair treatment is recognized by this Board and to the LCBO that it must take very seriously the harm done by failure to abide by the Code, I would award Ms. Hendry the additional sum of $8,000 as general compensation. Ms. Hendry should also receive a letter of apology from the LCBO.

[39] The Human Rights Commission has requested the opportunity to assist the LCBO in improving its employment practices so that they comply with the Code. It wishes to help develop a program to rectify the imbalance between men and women employed by the LCBO, and it wishes to monitor the LCBO employment practices for a period of twelve months from the date of this decision. It also requests that the LCBO post Ontario Human Rights Commission declarations of equal employment opportunities, brochures or code cards in prominent places on the premises of the LCBO facilities throughout the Province. These requests are reasonable in the circumstances and should be granted.

Seargeant v. Give and Go Prepared Foods Corp., 2022 HRTO 1446 (CanLII)

[40] In submissions, the applicant proposed a general compensation in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 citing the general damage awards in Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 and Couchie v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing), 2011 HRTO 689.

[41] Little evidence was presented by the applicant with respect to the impact of these discriminatory events other than that they aggravated a pre-existing mental health issue. No medical corroborating evidence was presented. Further, although the applicant sought to characterize the February 16, 2021, email as a termination, the evidence suggests it was limited to the applicant no longer being entitled to work at the night shift at the respondent’s Brampton location, as thereafter she was offered, and for at least two shifts, accepted employment on the afternoon shift. As noted by Mucciaccio “each shift/location has a completely different team that runs in a different way and we have seen that sometimes a change in environment (no matter how small) can make a big difference in fit for the employee as well as the client”.

[42] Taking into consideration the effect upon the applicant, and reviewing the range of compensation in the Tribunal’s case law, I find that an award of $15,000 for her loss of dignity and the injury to her feelings arising from the breach of her right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, colour and reprisal is appropriate.