Laurie Letheren

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that incidents involving police conduct and court proceedings lacked a reasonable prospect of success against the school board and were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal held that the remaining incidents involving interactions between school employees and the applicant or his mother formed a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The application was allowed to proceed on the remaining allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, ethnic origin, marital status, and age.

The respondents argued that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application date should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, which involved the respondents' alleged failure to properly investigate and respond to the applicant's complaints of harassment, shared a sufficient nexus with the timely incidents to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the earlier allegations, and the application was permitted to proceed.

The applicants filed separate applications against the same respondent and requested that the applications be heard together.

The respondent consented to the request.

Applying the factors set out in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal found that the applications raised common issues of fact and law.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, place of origin, sex, and age by his former family law lawyer.

The applicant alleged the respondent made a discriminatory comment about mothers getting custody in 2014, and later asked about his age when discussing access.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the 2014 comment due to delay, finding the applicant's desire to avoid conflict with his counsel did not constitute a good faith reason for missing the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination allegation, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to demonstrate any adverse impact resulting from the comment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Revera Long Term Care Inc. as a corporate respondent and remove the originally named personal respondent in an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal noted that the individual was acting in the course of her employment and that Revera, as the employer, would be deemed liable for her actions under the Human Rights Code.

As Revera had notice of the application and did not object or claim prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add Revera and remove the individual respondent.

The respondents Bowland Dental Laboratories Inc. and the Estate of Frank Bowland requested an order to remove Frank Bowland as a respondent to the human rights application.

They argued that Frank Bowland acted solely as an officer and agent of the corporate respondent, and that the corporation could respond to and remedy any alleged Code breaches.

The applicant and the co-respondent Solaris opposed the request, arguing that Frank Bowland could be personally liable as the directing mind of the corporation, and that there was a risk the inactive corporate respondent could not fulfill a monetary remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the individual respondent could be held personally liable and that his removal could prejudice the applicant and co-respondent.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had filed a civil claim seeking a remedy for an alleged Code breach.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil counterclaim for intrusion upon seclusion and constructive dismissal did not claim a remedy for a Code breach.

The request to dismiss was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the civil claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment.

The respondent hospital requested dismissal of allegations from 2015 due to delay, while the applicant requested to add the alleged harasser as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal found the 2015 incidents formed a series with later allegations and dismissed the hospital's request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the Code's vicarious liability provisions do not apply to harassment, making her inclusion necessary for a complete remedy.

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

An employee of the respondent, whose conduct was the subject of the allegations, filed a Request to Intervene to defend her reputation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the employee's interests would be adequately addressed through her anticipated testimony as a witness for the respondent, and she would not provide assistance to the Tribunal that could not otherwise be provided.

The applicant, a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent school board denied his request to have his autism assistance guide dog accompany him in class.

The respondent had conducted a behavioural assessment and concluded the dog was not necessary for the applicant to access the curriculum, as he was already achieving academic success and had other effective supports in place.

The Tribunal found that the respondent fulfilled its procedural duty to accommodate by conducting a timely and thorough individualized assessment.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent did not breach its substantive duty to accommodate, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the denial of the guide dog resulted in an adverse impact on his meaningful access to educational services.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add particulars, add reprisal as a ground of discrimination, and add the corporate president as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding they only clarified existing allegations without significantly expanding the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal also added the president as a personal respondent because the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of personal liability for harassment under section 5(2) of the Code, for which the corporate respondent would not be vicariously liable.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

He claimed the respondent church tolerated anti-Semitic comments by another patron at its drop-in program, banned him for one month after a physical altercation with that patron, and failed to properly address his subsequent complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was unaware of any prior anti-Semitic comments, acted reasonably when informed, and banned the applicant solely because of his involvement in a physical altercation.

There was no evidence that the respondent's actions or its handling of the complaint were connected to the applicant's Jewish identity.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed part of her human rights application for being filed more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law but failed to explain how.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and disagreeing with the outcome, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondents.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated, that they be dismissed for delay, and that the personal respondents be removed.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two applications as they involved the same parties and factual overlap.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the issues of delay and the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant and the respondent Ministry failed to attend the hearing.

As a result of the applicant's failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against an organizational respondent and several personal respondents.

The applicant was unable to provide current contact information for two of the personal respondents who no longer worked for the organizational respondent.

Pursuant to Rules 5.3 and 6.6(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application as against those two unlocatable personal respondents.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal allowed incidents 1-8 to proceed to a full hearing, finding a dispute on facts.

Incident 9, regarding a delayed Record of Employment, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success for reprisal.

The applicant's request to amend the application to add the ground of disability based on a recent diagnosis was denied due to prejudice to the respondent and because the respondent had no knowledge of the disability during employment.

The applicant, an educational assistant, alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs when it transferred her to a different school, and that it engaged in reprisal regarding her sick leave and long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision to transfer the applicant was based on her doctor's recommendation to negotiate a new work location due to workplace stress.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the new location did not meet her disability-related needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the employer withheld benefits or forms with an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services, housing, contracts, and vocational association membership.

The application challenged decisions made by the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the denial and calculation of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body or the calculation of benefits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex after being denied access to a sick leave plan following a car accident on maternity leave.

Her union had previously filed a grievance on the same issue, which was resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend her application with administrative complaints and dismissed the application, finding that the grievance proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.