Laurie Letheren

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against an organizational respondent and a personal respondent.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, to which the applicant consented.

Applying the Persaud criteria, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent was acting in her capacity as an employee of the corporate respondent and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed as a party.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order for the production of documents relating to a workplace investigation and assessments of racism and discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to determining whether the specific terms of the settlement—which involved protecting the applicant's reputation, amending a T4, and releasing personal documents—had been breached.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance filed by her union.

The applicant argued the grievance was placed in abeyance after she rejected a settlement offer.

The respondents and the union opposed reactivation, stating the grievance remained active and had not been concluded or formally held in abeyance.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis under Rule 14.4 to proceed as the grievance process had not concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and creed.

Prior to the preliminary hearing, the applicant requested early production of numerous documents, and his son requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce only documents related to the negotiation of a full and final release, finding the other requests premature.

The Tribunal denied the son's request to intervene, noting he appeared to be seeking applicant status and would not provide assistance beyond what the applicant could provide.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age, disability, and reprisal.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant conceded that the alleged incidents occurred more than a year before the application was filed and provided no good faith reason for the delay.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any new determinative evidence, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

At a summary hearing, the respondent challenged the applicant's use of an unlicensed representative.

The representative claimed the 'friend or neighbour' exemption under Law Society By-law 4, which allows unlicensed persons to provide legal services in no more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal found that the representative was providing legal services in at least four matters in 2015, including other tribunal and labour board applications.

Consequently, the representative was not permitted to appear before the Tribunal and was removed from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to service because of disability.

Following an interim order allowing the applicant to amend the application with new allegations, the parties filed a consent request to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates to allow the respondent sufficient time to investigate and respond.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances existed and granted the adjournment, setting a new schedule for filing the amended response and reply.

The applicant, a condominium owner with a disability, alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him by failing to resolve noise complaints regarding the unit above his.

The applicant claimed the noise exacerbated his medical conditions and that the respondent failed to accommodate him.

The Tribunal found that the respondent investigated every complaint, attempted to conduct noise testing which the applicant refused, and had no authority to force the upstairs occupant to use a walker or wheelchair.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions were not discriminatory and dismissed the application.

The respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift the stay, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, ancestry, and sex.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or file a Reply.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent Tribunal letter inquiring whether she intended to proceed with the application.

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

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity regarding the denial of funding for surgery, brought several requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests to amend the application to add gender expression as a ground and to increase the monetary compensation sought.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against her office.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy ordering immediate funding for the surgery, concluding it was not necessary to ensure a full and effective final remedy and would inappropriately grant part of the final remedy sought before a determination on the merits.

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

The union intervened, and the applicant requested that the union be removed as an intervenor and added as a respondent.

The applicant also requested consolidation with another application, while the respondent requested deferral pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual foundation for a discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also denied consolidation due to different facts and stages of proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration, which involved the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer a human rights application alleging discrimination in services, as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had stayed the application pending the final disposition of a related court matter.

Both parties agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the anonymization of the applicant's name to protect the identity of her minor child.

The applicant sought to amend a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was previously determined by the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding had a substantially different purpose and did not fully address the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe, even after being granted an extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a complete Response by October 19, 2015, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted all allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a grievance addressing the same incidents was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it, noting that the grievance arbitration was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to limit the respondent's use of her medical chart at the upcoming hearing and require the respondent to particularize the sections to be used.

The respondent filed a Request for Order for an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request as premature, noting that the deadline to file documents to be relied upon had not yet passed.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for an extension of time, finding the short delay caused no prejudice to the applicant.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the result of a proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant provided a copy of a settlement agreement resolving the OLRB matter.

Because the OLRB proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal denied the deferral request and directed the matter to mediation.