Laurie Letheren

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a response noting a concurrent civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability after she returned from a medical leave.

The respondent maintained that the termination was solely due to a condition in the share and asset purchase agreement for the sale of the business, which required all but two employees to be terminated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her disability was a factor in the termination, accepting the respondent's evidence that the purchaser's demand was the sole reason for her dismissal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

A concurrent Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) application was also filed containing similar allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the DFR proceeding.

The respondents supported the deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application because of the overlap in facts and human rights issues, noting that the DFR outcome could be determinative.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response.

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments would not prejudice the applicant and that a hearing date had not yet been set.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal and to modify the requested remedies.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding that they provided particulars of incidents already detailed in the application, that there was no prejudice to the respondent, and that sufficient time remained before the hearing for the respondent to prepare.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour, more than one year after his termination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to an ongoing union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the conclusion of another legal process does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, especially since the grievance concluded well within the one-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to increase the monetary remedies sought to $15,000.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties, and finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent school board requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of several union grievances filed on her behalf.

The grievances alleged a failure to accommodate during the back-to-work process, which overlapped with the facts and issues raised in the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process could adequately address the human rights issues and provide the requested remedies.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability, as well as reprisal, following his termination.

The applicant had a history of absenteeism and was disciplined for spitting in garbage cans at work.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant had a disability, nor any evidence linking his discipline and termination to his race or age.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding that the applicant had not attempted to enforce his rights under the Code prior to his termination, which was based on his attitude and demeanour during a disciplinary meeting.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against his former family law lawyer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to demonstrate that the previous decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure, or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the merits hearing due to a medical condition.

The applicant provided a medical consultation note indicating an inability to properly prepare for or participate in the hearing.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's health constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was ordered to provide further medical reports regarding his ability to participate in a rescheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, gender identity, and age.

The respondent requested the application be deferred because the applicant had previously filed a civil claim in the Superior Court regarding her termination.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair and expeditious way to proceed, as both proceedings dealt with the termination of the applicant's employment, creating a risk of duplicate evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant provided evidence that it had fulfilled all its obligations under the settlement, including making required payments and providing an employment letter.

Despite this, the respondent continued to send emails and letters demanding further payments and a new employment letter, in violation of the release clause.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the terms of the settlement and issued a declaration to that effect, as requested by the applicant.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his employer and Morneau Sheppell, the administrator of the employer's sick leave claims.

Morneau Sheppell requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against it, arguing the applicant could not demonstrate adverse treatment based on disability.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to review the correctness or fairness of benefits plan decisions unless there is a connection to a Code-protected ground.

As the applicant provided no evidence connecting the alleged adverse treatment to his disability, the application against Morneau Sheppell was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had not received the Notice of Hearing and was unaware of the hearing date or its disclosure obligations.

The applicant opposed the request, despite also failing to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's lack of notice constituted an exceptional circumstance and granted the adjournment to ensure a fair process.

The applicant, a former condominium board president, alleged she experienced discrimination and harassment on the basis of age when she was removed as a signing officer and as board president.

She claimed another board member called her an 'old bitch' and said the board was not a place for old people.

The respondents denied the allegations, testifying that the applicant was removed because she actively opposed the board's decisions, specifically regarding the termination of the superintendent, and acted against the corporation's interests.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence credible and concluded that the applicant's removal was based on her conduct, not her age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating he would not pursue the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a formal Request to Withdraw an Application (Form 9) by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to communicate further or file the form.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant advised the Tribunal by email that he would not be pursuing his application and would not attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing and directed the applicant to file a Form 9 Request to Withdraw an Application.

The applicant failed to file the completed form or communicate further with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed requests to schedule a witness, split her testimony, and compel certain individuals to attend the hearing to listen to her impact evidence.

The respondent requested production of the applicant's complete clinical file and long-term disability application documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and disability documents, finding them arguably relevant to her claims of failure to accommodate and health impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the witness scheduling request but denied the requests to compel attendance and split testimony.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that incidents involving police conduct and court proceedings lacked a reasonable prospect of success against the school board and were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal held that the remaining incidents involving interactions between school employees and the applicant or his mother formed a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The application was allowed to proceed on the remaining allegations.