Laurie Letheren

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders for the production of documents and to amend her application to add the ground of disability and update her requested remedies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents, which related to wage increases, bonuses, and human resources policies, to be arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on pregnancy.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to bring the requested documents to the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging race discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant submitted further documentation regarding the corporate respondent's recruitment policy but did not demonstrate that this was new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, disability, citizenship, and place of origin.

He claimed that while seeking emergency treatment at the respondent hospital, a registration clerk treated him poorly because he was from Quebec.

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

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding the hospital would be vicariously liable for their actions.

The Tribunal then dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere speculation to link the alleged poor treatment to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, related to the respondent's alleged breach of its re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal.

The respondent subsequently advised the Tribunal that it would not continue its WSIB appeal.

Finding that the WSIB proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal ordered the human rights application reactivated and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and creed regarding his termination and pension plan provisions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the release, had legal advice, and was not under duress or subject to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he lacked the cognitive capacity to understand the release when he signed it.

The Tribunal found no medical or other evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity, noting he understood he had to sign to receive severance.

The Tribunal held the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

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

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding.

The applicant withdrew her OLRB claim, and the respondent did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding had concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to file its response within 35 days.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after the respondents removed his agnostic Alcoholics Anonymous group from their directories and denied them intergroup membership rights.

The respondents argued that belief in God is a bona fide requirement for the 12-step program and claimed protection under section 18 of the Human Rights Code as a special interest group.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the complex legal and factual issues required a full evidentiary record and declined to dismiss the application, ordering it to proceed through the normal process.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached several terms of their Minutes of Settlement.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to allege he lacked the capacity to sign the agreement.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it was out of time, would cause prejudice, and lacked evidentiary support.

The Tribunal then reviewed the alleged breaches, including claims regarding the removal of documents, tax rebate paperwork, job competition restrictions, and reference letters.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent breached any terms of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a resident of the respondent housing co-operative, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events prior to October 30, 2013, as they were filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing a good faith reason for the delay.

The remaining allegations regarding a gesture made by the coordinator and a request to use her legal name were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding noise complaints.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated evidence and arguments from the original hearing and failed to demonstrate any factors under Rule 26.5 that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend her Application to add new allegations of disability discrimination dating back several years, add a claim of reprisal, and adjust the remedies sought.

The respondent sought to amend his Response to clarify facts regarding the issuance of a Record of Employment.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add new allegations and the reprisal claim, finding that the new allegations were out of time, did not form a series of incidents with the original termination allegation, and would prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedies sought and the respondent's request to amend the Response.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement by paying insufficient severance and failing to provide continuous health and dental benefits.

The Tribunal found the language of the Minutes was clear and unambiguous, and the respondent had complied with the agreed-upon terms regarding severance pay and the 18-month continuation of benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the individual respondent and the corporate respondent.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application against the corporate respondent, arguing it is not liable for sexual solicitation by employees, and against the individual respondent, arguing she could not confer a benefit or advancement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to dismiss the application against either respondent without hearing evidence on the issues under sections 7, 8, and 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and an individual lawyer who acted as opposing counsel in a family law proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the Code does not cover the relationship between a party and opposing counsel, nor does it cover the Law Society's adjudicative function in handling complaints.

Furthermore, the application was filed more than seven years after the alleged incidents, well beyond the one-year limitation period.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to challenge a decision by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board to direct an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as the conduct complained of was a quasi-judicial decision protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The union respondents requested summary dismissal on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing a prior grievance settlement dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents, finding no facts were alleged linking their representation to a Code ground.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, as the grievance settlement only covered a portion of the time period during which the applicant alleged discrimination.

The applicant failed to attend mediation and subsequently failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the exchange of documents and witness statements.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to respond or provide the required materials.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The parties jointly requested that the applicant's name be anonymized in the Tribunal process, following a previous interim decision that had denied the request.

In light of newly developed circumstances involving highly sensitive information, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant the anonymization order, balancing the public interest in open justice against the significant consequences of identifying the applicant.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking detailed witness statements and document production from the respondent.

The respondent had failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and a Case Assessment Direction regarding disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its disclosure obligations and ordered the respondent to provide a list of witnesses, detailed witness statements, and copies of all documents it intends to rely on at the hearing.