Laurie Letheren

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after his employer failed to pay his wages and subjected him to racist insults, including calling him a 'Muslim terrorist'.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that while the reprisal claim failed, the respondent's egregious comments constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $960.52 for lost earnings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after his employment was terminated for allegedly abandoning his job following a leave of absence.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Officer decision awarding the applicant termination pay had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA decision addressed whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct, but did not address whether the termination failed to accommodate his Code-related needs.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to file an amended Reply.

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

As the applicant did not file the required materials, the Tribunal concluded that the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for medical reasons, providing documentation that her condition had worsened and self-representation was unmanageable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical documentation established extraordinary circumstances justifying the request outside the standard 14-day period.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment, claiming the respondent's owner made rude and humiliating remarks.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because she had recently retained counsel who had a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had previously agreed to the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondents from an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and granted the request, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, the employees were acting within the scope of their duties, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the basis that neither party had complied with their disclosure obligations, as the respondent believed a prior request for a summary hearing would dispose of the application.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondent's belief regarding the summary hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence inquiring whether he intended to proceed with the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent care home restricted his visits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the alleged unfairness to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include additional facts and to add his union as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend because the applicant failed to provide sufficient details about the dates of the newly alleged incidents, preventing an assessment of prejudice or timeliness.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding that the applicant failed to identify any events or factual foundation that could support a finding that the union violated his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate their human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding had concluded and ordered the application to be reactivated.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal for abandonment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts and reprisal after her contract for administrative services was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to any protected ground 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 human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by not offering suitable work after a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the completion of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

Finding a significant overlap in facts and issues between the two proceedings, and a real risk of inconsistent findings regarding the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal.

After the respondent filed a response and requested a summary hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent sought to impose conditions on the withdrawal, specifically an undertaking that the applicant would not file a new application based on the same facts.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal without conditions, noting that if the applicant were to file a new application, the respondent could raise its objections at that time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of reprisal after receiving a parking ticket for having a boat trailer in his driveway overnight.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to link the respondent's actions to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code or explain how it amounted to a reprisal.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, claiming that 'no trespass' orders issued by the respondent school boards infringed his right to attend candidates meetings and school board meetings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or explain how the respondents' behaviour constituted reprisal.

The applicant's subsequent submissions failed to link the allegations to a Code ground or explain the reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were not grounded in the Code and did not support a claim of reprisal, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The 15-year-old applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment after being unable to apply for a job that required enrollment in full-time post-secondary education.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction, as section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, and the applicant did not raise a Charter challenge to this definition.