Laurie Letheren

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant provided evidence that the Board had issued a final decision and a review decision.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the respondent to indicate whether it wished to engage in mediation.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the personal respondent was acting within the scope of his duties as a director of the condominium corporation, and that the corporation was deemed liable for his actions under section 45(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the delivery and filing of documents, witness lists, and a Statement of Delivery by October 26, 2016.

Given the failure to comply with disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and the lack of communication with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent United Church of Canada requested a deferral pending a related internal proceeding, which the Tribunal denied because the internal proceeding was already complete.

The respondent London Conference requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request, finding that complex legal issues and factual disputes required a full evidentiary record.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed two applications alleging breach of a prior settlement and reprisal by the respondents.

The applicant brought a request to amend the reprisal application to include incidents that allegedly occurred after the settlement was signed.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings.

A personal respondent also requested to be removed from the application, arguing she had no decision-making power in the organization.

The Tribunal denied this request as premature, noting that her role remained unclear prior to the exchange of documents and development of an evidentiary record.

The applicant, a young South Asian man, alleged he was racially profiled and subjected to discrimination by a police officer who followed him home, and by a Staff Sergeant who later made comments about his appearance at the police station.

The Tribunal found that the officer had a valid, non-discriminatory reason to follow the applicant due to his driving behaviour, which raised suspicions of impairment.

The Tribunal also found that the Staff Sergeant's comments did not amount to adverse treatment or harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former employer's refusal to provide a reference letter was a reprisal for a previous human rights application that had been settled.

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

The Tribunal found that the employer had instituted a policy of not providing reference letters to any former employees prior to the applicant's departure.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence demonstrating that the refusal was an intentional act of reprisal.

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

The respondent Centennial College requested an order to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondents were deemed liable for the actions of their employees under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

As there were no allegations of individual wrongdoing that would warrant a specific remedy against the personal respondents, the Tribunal ordered their removal from the proceeding.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after he was not hired for a transit operator position with the respondent.

The respondent maintained that the applicant did not progress in the hiring process because he scored below the required cut-off on behavioural interview questions.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided only speculative assertions and a 'gut feeling' to link the respondent's decision to his age.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled preliminary hearing because the litigation guardian sustained an injury preventing her from sitting or concentrating, and a witness was scheduled for surgery.

The respondent opposed the request, citing prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the guardian's physical restrictions constituted exceptional circumstances, as she is the directing mind for the minor applicant.

The adjournment request was granted.

The personal respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to be removed from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred within the scope of her employment.

As there were no allegations making it appropriate to order a remedy specifically against the personal respondent, and the corporate respondent was in the best position to remedy any discrimination, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the application.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the production of documents and witness statements.

The applicant also failed to respond to requests for availability and failed to attend a scheduled case conference telephone call.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination and attach two documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, agreeing with the respondent that the amendment was unnecessary because discrimination was already alleged in the original application.

The Tribunal noted that the attached documents could be disclosed and filed in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that a co-worker repeatedly made vexatious and sexually explicit comments to the applicant, constituting sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's management failed to properly investigate or address the applicant's complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim of reprisal regarding his termination, finding it was due to poor performance.

The respondent was ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to provide human rights training to its staff.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application at the summary hearing stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on race and colour after an incident at the respondent's store where he was accused of harassing a customer and asked to leave.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision was not in conflict with established jurisprudence regarding summary hearings or racial profiling, as the applicant failed to provide any circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent's actions to his race or colour.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not file witness statements or documents and ceased communication with the Tribunal and the respondent.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondents, one on behalf of another individual and one in his own name.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make written submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that the allegations and respondents were identical, and consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to be heard together.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a claim for $25,000 in general damages and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the amendment did not add new grounds of discrimination or new parties.

The applicant requested a stay of the human rights application pending the outcome of a family court proceeding that would determine whether the litigation guardian had the right to continue acting in that capacity.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the stay for one year and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

A related application was closed following a confirmation of settlement.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it did not appear to raise any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

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

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