Laurie Letheren

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process because he had signed a full and final release upon his employment termination.

The applicant argued that the preliminary hearing process was unfair and that the Tribunal's findings regarding fraudulent misrepresentation were flawed.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Contravention of Settlement Application.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, alleging bias and disagreeing with procedural and evidentiary findings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, and reprisal after being asked to leave the respondent's store.

The respondent's employees accused the applicant of harassing another customer.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own subjective belief to link the respondent's actions to his race or colour, and made no allegations amounting to reprisal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA claim was another proceeding, it focused on unpaid wages and termination, and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the accommodation allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the individually named respondent, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable and capable of remedying any alleged Code infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin by the respondent, who was legal counsel for the Ontario Labour Relations Board in another proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as opposing counsel does not provide a service to an adverse party within the meaning of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin against an employee of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

The applicant's written submissions alleged the respondent created a fake rule regarding document delivery but failed to connect this to his place of origin.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on place of origin regarding a Case Assessment Direction she issued in another matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, as the allegations related entirely to the respondent's decisions in her adjudicative role, which are protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal one year and nine months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for a response to an internal complaint.

The Tribunal found that waiting for an internal complaint process to conclude does not justify a delay in filing an application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including interview results and performance reviews, and requested that two of her witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the Ministry to produce the applicant's interview results and the redacted interview results of successful candidates, finding them arguably relevant to her reprisal allegations.

The request for performance reviews of other employees was denied as irrelevant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the telephone testimony request until the applicant provided the required medical reports and detailed witness statements.

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

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

The respondent did not object, and the applicant made no submissions.

Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, noting the factual overlap and lack of prejudice.

A separate request by the respondent to dismiss one of the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code was deferred to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

An arbitrator had issued a decision on the grievance, canvassing all issues raised in the application.

The respondents argued the Tribunal had no basis to proceed given the arbitrator's decision, but did not oppose reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application.

The application had previously been deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent civil action due to a substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The applicant argued that an Affidavit of Documents from the civil action demonstrated no overlap.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was still ongoing and the risk of inconsistent findings remained.

The request to reactivate was denied as premature.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that parts of the Application be dismissed as untimely, as they referred to events occurring more than one year prior to filing.

During a case conference, the applicant confirmed she was only proceeding with allegations that occurred on or after April 20, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the parts of the Application involving incidents prior to that date.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to serve and file documents and witness statements relevant to the narrowed issues.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to call three additional witnesses not previously identified on its witness list.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting there was sufficient time to prepare and deliver witness statements before the hearing resumed, and ordered the issuance of summonses for the witnesses.

The applicant requested that her scheduled in-person hearing be converted to a telephone hearing because she did not want to see the respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that credibility was a key issue and required in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding that assessing credibility would be difficult over the telephone and that the applicant had not provided any Code-related reasons to justify her absence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, specifically challenging the cancellation of a mediation and the partial dismissal of her application before that body.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application must be dismissed, as the allegations related entirely to the decisions of the respondent in its adjudicative role, which are protected by adjudicative immunity and cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal.

The respondent school board requested an order to remove the individually named respondent, a school principal, from the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the school board acknowledged the principal was acting within the course of his employment and assumed responsibility for his conduct.

Applying established principles, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party, as the corporate respondent could fully remedy any alleged Code infringement and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than six years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing a civil action against the respondent, which concluded in 2015.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent complaint before the OmbudService for Life & Health Insurance (OLHI).

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing a need for immediate financial assistance.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings, specifically whether the applicant was properly denied long-term disability benefits due to a pre-existing condition.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLHI complaint.

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

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was largely dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer and appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant factual overlap regarding the reasons for termination and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.