Laurie Letheren

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the hearing venue be moved from Toronto to Ottawa, citing childcare responsibilities and an upcoming childbirth.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the alleged discrimination occurred in Toronto where its witnesses were located.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged discrimination—the refusal of medical services—occurred in Toronto, and the applicant's childcare difficulties were insufficient to justify changing the venue.

The applicant, a member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after receiving Notices to Appear regarding the potential termination of her membership and occupancy rights, and the subsequent removal of her housing subsidy.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' actions to her disability, nor any evidence to counter the respondents' position that the subsidy was removed for legitimate reasons (failure to provide required income verification).

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request to defer the human rights application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be reconsidered under Rule 26.1.

However, acting on its own motion under Rule 16, the Tribunal decided to defer the application because the respondent had filed a Notice of Objection to the WSIB decision, creating an ongoing proceeding with overlapping issues regarding the duty to accommodate and re-employment obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing and provided the applicant with proper notice.

When the applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide an explanation for her absence, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Despite being given additional time to travel to the hearing after his counsel contacted him, the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient notice and time to attend, and dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The trustee in bankruptcy for the respondent filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, advising that the respondent had filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that because the application sought monetary relief, it was a claim provable in bankruptcy and subject to the statutory stay under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed, and the applicant was directed to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift the stay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing teleconference.

The applicant explained that she missed the hearing because her mother had a serious accident and was in critical condition in the hospital.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and that factors existed outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new summary hearing was ordered.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, place of origin, and ethnic origin be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that WSIB decisions regarding loss of earnings benefits appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant also suggested deferring the application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB decisions were limited to eligibility for benefits related to workplace injuries, whereas the Code's duty to accommodate applies to all disabilities, not just those arising from workplace injuries.

The Tribunal denied both the request to dismiss and the request to defer.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of public assistance.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a warning from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the personal respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the completion of a grievance process.

The applicant argued that an internal investigation was complete, but the respondent opposed reactivation because the grievance process itself had not concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so under Rule 14.4 until the grievance process is completed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal, claiming he was unfairly disciplined following a health and safety breach while others were not.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to a protected ground or explain how it constituted a reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

Finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include new allegations of failure to accommodate her disability at a different recreation facility, which occurred after the original application was filed.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it would expand the scope of the proceeding and cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegations were a continuation of the original claims, the request was timely, and amending the application was more efficient than requiring a new, separate application.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and disability after a professor denied her request for an extension and assigned her failing grades in December 2012.

She pursued internal academic appeals until May 2014 and filed her human rights application in May 2014.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the internal appeal processes were not a series of discriminatory incidents but rather the ongoing effects of the December 2012 decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of an internal appeal process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after a summary hearing.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence linking the alleged negative treatment to a protected ground.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not provide any new, determinative evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, as required by Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request was an attempt to reargue the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application against numerous respondents alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against several organizational respondents because the allegations did not identify specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents except the Toronto Police Services Board, finding the allegations amounted to general dissatisfaction with services or invasions of privacy outside its jurisdiction.

A summary hearing was ordered for the remaining allegations against the Toronto Police Services Board to address issues of delay and whether there is a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against numerous respondents, including government offices and lawyers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction and lacked connection to Code grounds.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application against several respondents for whom no specific allegations were made.

The applicant was ordered to provide further details regarding the remaining respondents and to explain any delay in filing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging discrimination after a judge denied her motion.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over courts and tribunals in the execution of their adjudicative duties due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant's submissions did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the complaint related entirely to judicial activity protected by judicial immunity.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order seeking production of documents from the respondent doctor, including data on patient roster changes and staff turnover.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the respondent's decision to end the doctor-patient relationship was a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could not engage in a fishing expedition.

The respondent physician requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer the applicant's discrimination application because a concurrent complaint based on the same facts was pending before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act creates an absolute statutory privilege that prevents the disclosure of CPSO findings in a civil proceeding like a Tribunal application.

Consequently, the risk of inconsistent findings—a primary rationale for deferral—did not apply.