Laurie Letheren

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time to file a Response, an order directing the applicant to particularize his Application, and the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request for particulars, noting the Application lacked details regarding the alleged disability discrimination and harassment.

The applicant was ordered to provide an amended Application with full particulars.

The request to remove the personal respondent was denied without prejudice, to be reassessed after the particulars are provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had not been convicted of an offence, but only charged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the statutory definition of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code requires a conviction for a pardoned offence or a provincial offence, and does not extend to mere criminal charges.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase her claim for monetary compensation and request additional public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no new grounds or parties were being added and the respondent consented.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment seven years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, instead referencing criminal law limitation periods.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the result of a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant opposed the request, noting that the WSIB had already issued a decision.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request because the WSIB matter had concluded, and directed the parties to mediation.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction and subsequent Tribunal correspondence.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services and employment because of disability.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against Canadian Blood Services.

The Tribunal raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction over the matter, given that the respondent receives federal funding and some of its services are federally regulated.

Both parties submitted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant's employment as a Supply Technician falls under provincial labour relations.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the essential operational nature of the applicant's work was provincially regulated, and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that a prior WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision was limited to workplace injuries and did not address the applicant's non-work-related disabilities or the full scope of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent was liable for his conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on multiple grounds after she was allegedly ignored and asked to leave a coffee shop.

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

The applicant could not provide any evidence connecting the alleged treatment to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and ethnic origin after he was denied a building operator position.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving his claims, as he relied solely on his own subjective beliefs and speculation without any objective evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer due to an ongoing union classification grievance.

The applicant and the union opposed deferral, noting the grievance did not allege Code breaches and the Code allegations post-dated the classification dispute.

The respondent argued for deferral to avoid contradictory results.

The Tribunal found no overlap between the facts and issues in the grievance and the application, and ordered that the application not be deferred.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that the organizational respondent is a federally regulated interprovincial transportation company.

The applicant did not provide submissions disputing this characterization.

The Tribunal found that the organizational respondent transports goods across provincial and international borders and is therefore a federally regulated enterprise.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a Northern Health Travel Grant.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the respondent argued that a 2011 settlement and release from a previous application barred the current claim.

The Tribunal held that the release language only applied to the specific events and allegations of the 2010 application and did not preclude future claims arising from subsequent grant denials.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by requesting receipts for a computer and printer funded prior to the settlement.

The applicant argued the settlement resolved all technology funding issues, exempting him from providing receipts.

The Tribunal found the settlement clearly pertained only to the original application regarding a denied tablet device, and the request for receipts for previously funded equipment did not constitute a breach.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who uses a power wheelchair, booked a hotel room through an online service and was informed an accessible room was available.

Upon arriving at the respondent hotel in a rainstorm, he discovered the office and all guest rooms had steps and were inaccessible.

The respondent offered no accommodation other than suggesting the 300-pound wheelchair be lifted into the room.

The Tribunal found the respondent constructively discriminated against the applicant by maintaining physical barriers to its services.

The respondent failed to establish that providing a ramp or other accommodation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $3,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to make its office and at least one guest room accessible.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) against one of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal received a decision from the LSUC indicating it had closed its file to avoid concurrent fact-finding exercises with the Tribunal.

As there was no longer a risk of inconsistent decisions from concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal denied the request to defer and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and marital status against the Royal Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (NOID) raising the issue of federal jurisdiction over banks.

The applicant did not respond to the NOID.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because banks fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.