Laurie Letheren

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement by failing to provide a braille label on the CD containing her plain text bills.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under the Minutes by instructing a provider to deliver the bills in plain text format on a CD containing all necessary information.

The application was dismissed as there was no breach of the settlement terms.

The applicant in an age discrimination case brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all emails stored in his draft folder while employed by the respondent.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to particularize his request.

The applicant narrowed the request to emails between himself and a specific manager over a three-year period, asserting they contained proof of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it remained overly broad and failed to demonstrate how the specific documents sought were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase and particularize her claim for monetary compensation, and to add reinstatement and human rights training to her requested remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also granted a joint request for an extension of time to file documents and witness statements.

The applicant, a student at the respondent College, alleged discrimination based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, gender expression, and reprisal.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own suspicions to link the alleged unfair treatment, including academic grades and comments by professors, to any protected Code grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, marital status, and age.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed late and that the applicant's explanation of lacking the courage to file earlier did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by assisting his employer in requesting a medical note before he could attend a convention, and by creating barriers to a grievance settlement.

The respondent union requested a summary dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the duty of fair representation.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the union did not formulate a discriminatory rule but merely assisted in communicating the employer's demands, which does not amount to differential treatment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The applicant provided no reasons for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to reconsider the deferral, but instead asked the Tribunal to address a prior request for production.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the request for production would be addressed if the application is re-activated.

The applicant, a resident of the respondent housing co-operative, requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had alleged discrimination based on place of origin, claiming she was not allowed to use the English version of her Polish name.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely sought to reargue her case and failed to provide new determinative evidence or identify factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination regarding an Addition to Household application, and requested production of related documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the new allegations were beyond the scope of the current proceedings and would cause prejudice by necessitating the re-opening of the hearing.

Consequently, the request for document production was also denied as the documents were no longer relevant.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA make documents generated during the complaint process inadmissible in another proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to properly name the organizational respondent, add grounds of colour and sex, and add remedies, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy stages.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against York University and its employee, Jennifer Dalton.

The applicant requested that the applications be consolidated and the upcoming hearing adjourned.

The respondents agreed to the consolidation and adjournment but also requested that the first application be dismissed as abandoned because the applicant missed a deadline to confirm her in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, accepting the applicant's explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications and adjourned the hearing to allow pleadings to close and mediation to occur.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by a client of the respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal found that the application should not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as there were factual and legal disputes requiring a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of the client's log books, investigation notes, employment contracts, and workplace policies, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, subject to redactions for privacy.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the interim decision did not dispose of any central issues and was therefore not a final decision.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it could not address the request for reconsideration and denied it.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts and, despite amending the Statement of Claim to remove references to the Code, subsequently filed a Response to Demand for Particulars confirming he was pursuing damages for Code breaches.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) applied and it had no discretion to allow the application to proceed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to attend a family wedding out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to make the request within the required 14-day period and that attending a wedding did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a late adjournment.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide witness statements for three additional witnesses by a specified deadline, failing which they may not be permitted to testify.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled merits hearing due to emergency surgery and a required recovery period.

The respondent opposed the request because she had already hired staff to cover her absence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical emergency constituted exceptional circumstances under its Practice Direction and granted the adjournment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) regarding the application against the union, as the applicant failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by the union.

The applicant did not respond to the NOID.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could demonstrate the union's actions were linked to a protected ground under the Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant in a human rights complaint filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking the production of further documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing on the merits had already commenced and the deadline for document disclosure had passed.

Furthermore, a Summary Hearing had been scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, for which no evidence was to be produced.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as it was out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent, while also pursuing an action in Small Claims Court based on overlapping facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

Finding a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding.