Laurie Letheren

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, or facilities.

She requested an order to use initials and to protect identifying information during the proceedings to prevent potential risks to her personal security and to avoid harassment.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's privacy and security interests outweighed the principles of an open justice system, particularly since a full publication ban was not requested.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the corporate respondent, an international moving services company.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company engaged in interprovincial and international transportation.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the corporate respondent's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the actions of the personal respondents, who were acting within the scope of their employment.

Finding no prejudice to the applicant and no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance involving the same facts and legal issues was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap between the application and the grievance, creating a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceeded concurrently.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations related entirely to the conduct of a judge executing adjudicative duties, which is protected by judicial immunity, and failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the completion of a related labour arbitration.

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal found the arbitration was concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondents to file their responses and any reply regarding the dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the delivery of a service based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the FSCO arbitration, raising a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding had concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to file its response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the grounds of disability, creed, sex, marital status, and race.

Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell filed a Request to Intervene to address issues regarding the interpretation of the Child and Family Services Act and to provide relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding that Valoris had a significant interest in the proceeding as the applicant had interactions with the organization and the application made allegations against it.

The applicant filed a Form 10 Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the union had denied the applicant's appeal and would not be proceeding with the grievance.

As the grievance was no longer proceeding, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

The corporate respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the resolution of a union grievance filed by the applicant's association.

The applicant consented to the deferral, but the personal respondent objected, arguing he was not a party to the grievance.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding an almost complete overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, and concluding that concurrent proceedings would create a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the allegations regarding hiring practices were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the application included broader allegations of harassment and a poisoned work environment not covered by the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process could also review those broader issues and that proceeding concurrently posed a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment resulting in disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the WSIB dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported the deferral, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and outcomes between the two proceedings.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to prepare and deliver witness statements and documents by the specified deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that failure to comply by an extended deadline could result in dismissal, the applicant again failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the discrimination claim, which included allegations of discriminatory comments and adverse treatment regarding sales territories and supplies, had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed it to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the respondent intentionally breached the applicant's privacy in retaliation for her asserting her rights under the Code.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after it was deferred pending a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The corporate respondent did not oppose reactivation but sought an extension of time to file its Response until after receiving a related Peel Regional Police Services report.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and found an extension of time unnecessary, as the respondents had 35 days from the reactivation date to file their Responses under the Tribunal's rules.

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

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

Applying its established procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the individual respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

Mediation was scheduled for the applicant and the corporate respondent.

The applicant, a transit employee and part-time firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and age after he was not hired for a full-time firefighter position.

During the recruitment process, the applicant was asked about his attendance at work on the day of his swim test, as he had called in sick to his transit job to attend the test.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving a link between the respondents' actions and his race or age.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging sex discrimination be deferred pending the outcome of union grievances related to unjust discipline and tuition reimbursement.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievances, particularly regarding allegations of harassment.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the parties were working on settling the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction on Scheduling requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournment requests, and that engaging in settlement discussions does not meet this threshold.