Laurie Letheren

During the hearing of a human rights application, the applicant sought to amend her claim to include allegations that she was denied a performance review in 2014 and a bonus paid in 2015, arguing that late disclosure by the respondent prejudiced her ability to assess the issues earlier.

The respondent objected, claiming prejudice because it had not called witnesses to address these specific claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as it had notice that wages and bonuses were at issue, and the respondent's own changing position on bonuses contributed to the applicant's lack of clarity.

The applicant filed two Contravention of Settlement Applications and subsequently requested to withdraw them.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested that conditions be imposed to prevent the applicant from re-litigating the same allegations, arguing that the applicant's correspondence attempted to impose unilateral conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's correspondence did not impose conditions and, following established jurisprudence, declined to impose a 'with prejudice' condition on the withdrawal prior to a hearing.

The request to withdraw was granted without conditions.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination based on pregnancy filed a request for production of documents relating to her job performance, the respondents' progressive discipline policy, and email tracking records.

The respondents submitted that they had already disclosed all relevant documents in their possession and had no formal discipline policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had disclosed all relevant documents they possessed and noting that the applicant would have the opportunity to question the respondents' witness regarding the receipt of emails.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $4,500 as agreed in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent issued a cheque but subsequently placed a stop payment on it, causing the applicant's bank account to become overdrawn and resulting in stress and anxiety.

The respondent did not file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding $4,500, plus $750 in compensation for the injury to the applicant's dignity and self-worth caused by the breach, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that the Tribunal failed to address a $5,000 shortfall allegedly owed by the respondents from the sale of a franchise business.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case and that it lacks jurisdiction to address pure contract disputes or payment shortfalls absent a proven breach of the Human Rights Code.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, her application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration, explaining she had started a new job and forgot the hearing date.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that forgetting a hearing date due to a new job does not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally deferred pending another proceeding, and was dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to a status update request.

The applicant claimed he did not receive the email requesting the update.

The Tribunal found that the email was sent to the address provided by the applicant and did not bounce back, and that the applicant had successfully received other emails at that address, including the dismissal decision itself.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed requests to amend her human rights application and to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend in part, allowing new allegations regarding the back-to-work process but denying amendments related to a recent job posting to avoid prejudicing the respondent.

The request to expedite was denied, as the applicant's stress and financial situation did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence, especially given the impending hearing dates.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, alleged discrimination in contracts because his commercial lease included a clause stating the landlord was not required to upgrade the washrooms to be barrier-free.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the lease was signed.

The Tribunal found that the inclusion of the term in the lease was a single act with continuing effects, not a series of incidents.

As the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Automobile Accident Benefits Service Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The Tribunal found that the issues and underlying facts in both proceedings were substantially the same, creating a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services and accommodation on the basis of receipt of public assistance after her application for membership in the respondent housing co-operative was denied.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' requests for specific financial documentation or their ultimate denial of her application to the fact that she received social assistance.

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

The applicant filed two Contravention of Settlement Applications alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant requested that the two applications be heard together, and the respondent consented.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and found that consolidating the applications would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, prevent inconsistent findings, and cause no prejudice to the parties.

The request was granted and the applications were consolidated.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The request was filed more than three months past the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to provide any reasons for the delay despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (NOID) because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond by a specific date but failed to do so.

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

The applicant, a seasonal paving worker, alleged he was terminated because of his Turkish ethnic origin and a workplace injury to his finger.

The Tribunal dismissed the ethnic origin claim for lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination, rejecting the employer's assertion that he was laid off due to a shortage of work.

The employer failed to provide credible evidence or documentation supporting the shortage of work claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer's management to undergo human rights training.

A claim for lost wages was denied because medical evidence indicated the applicant was unable to work due to the injury itself.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was deferred pending the outcome of an Employment Standards Act claim.

After the ESA claim concluded, the applicant failed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate the application within the 60-day period required by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled summary and preliminary hearings, citing a recently scheduled medical appointment.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the absence of medical documentation indicating an inability to proceed and the long-standing notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant could have avoided the scheduling conflict and the hearing was scheduled to conclude before the medical appointment.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was signed by her friend acting as her representative, without the required Form 27 authorization.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to either file a completed Form 27 or sign the application herself to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction or file the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add an allegation that she was terminated on May 18, 2011.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely, lacked a reasonable prospect of success, and would cause prejudice by significantly broadening the scope of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that allowing it would prejudice the respondents and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating she was terminated on that date, as her employment ended as a consequence of an earlier decision to deny tenure.