Laurie Letheren

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Although the OLRB dismissed her Employment Standards Act complaint, a hearing for her Occupational Health and Safety Act complaint remained pending.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of inconsistent findings remained due to overlapping facts and issues, and ordered the application to remain deferred until the OLRB determines the OHSA complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code, while also pursuing an action in Small Claims Court involving overlapping facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting her Small Claims Court claim was struck and appealed to the Divisional Court.

The respondents supported deferral to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding and any related appeals, citing the significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase and particularize her claim for monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and for lost opportunity.

The respondents opposed the request to the extent it sought to withdraw or alter admissions.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds or parties, nor was she seeking to withdraw or alter admissions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add details regarding an alleged breach of the collective agreement and to increase the monetary compensation claimed.

The respondent consented to the request and the intervenor took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the civil matter had not yet been scheduled for trial and raised concerns about the individual respondent's advanced age.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature because the civil action had not concluded and the risk of inconsistent findings remained.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking anonymity in the Tribunal process, arguing that the nature of his disability was stigmatizing and could negatively impact future employment.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the facts did not present exceptional circumstances of sensitivity or privacy that would justify departing from the open hearing principle.

The Tribunal noted that most disability cases involve some disclosure of personal information and that measures could be taken in writing decisions to reveal only necessary private information.

The applicant, a student, alleged discrimination by the respondent school resulting in his dismissal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled that the allegations dating back to November 2012 constituted a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also granted requests to remove the personal respondent and to amend the application to add the ground of disability.

Various requests for the production of documents were decided, including denying the applicant's request for other students' disciplinary records and granting the respondent's requests for the applicant's educational and medical records.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and reprisal after he was unsuccessful in the recruitment process for a transit operator position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant relied solely on his subjective belief that he was treated differently because he is Black, and failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decision not to hire him to his race.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because grievances had been filed addressing the same incidents.

The respondent supported deferral, noting the grievances would soon proceed to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievances were closed and the issues were different.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the grievance arbitration appeared to be the same as those in the application, and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the University, several individual respondents, and a union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the individual respondents and the union, as the narrative did not detail any specific acts of discrimination by them.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the University was deemed liable for the actions of its employees, there was no concern about the University's ability to remedy the alleged infringements, and no compelling reason existed to continue the proceeding against the individuals or the union.

The individual respondents and the union were removed as parties.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant's counsel admitted that her office failed to notify the applicant of the hearing date, and the applicant, whose first language is not English, only learned of the hearing on the morning it was scheduled.

The Tribunal allowed the request for reconsideration, finding that it would not be fair and just to penalize the applicant for his counsel's inadvertence, and directed that new hearing dates be scheduled.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for the production of the applicant's medical records and income tax returns.

The applicant objected, arguing the medical request was a fishing expedition and the tax returns were irrelevant.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents, finding that the medical records were arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and the tax returns were relevant to mitigation of damages and whether the applicant was working while absent from employment.

The corporate respondent requested that the human rights application alleging employment discrimination be dismissed because the applicant had filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry of Labour claims related to occupational health and safety and employment standards, not human rights, and denied the request to dismiss.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed two applications before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: one alleging a breach of a previous settlement and another alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the two applications.

Despite opposition from the respondents, the Tribunal found that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the potential for inconsistent findings, as both applications arose from essentially the same set of facts.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and directed them to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of reprisal that occurred after the application was filed.

The respondent did not oppose the request, provided no further amendments would delay the hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that the hearing was still several months away.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled for December 16, 2015, to seek adequate representation.

The request was filed one week prior to the hearing, outside the 14-day period required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that seeking additional time to retain a new representative late in the process did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application, which alleged sex discrimination.

The proposed amendment sought to add details to an incident already alleged in the original application.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not significantly expand the scope of the hearing, did not add new allegations of Code breaches, and was made at an early stage of the proceeding.

The respondent was granted time to amend his response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondent requested to add an organizational respondent, which was granted on consent.

The respondent also requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether there were good faith reasons for the delay before deciding on the dismissal request.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code breaches.

The applicant subsequently amended his civil Statement of Claim to remove all references to the Code and any allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that because the amended civil claim no longer contained allegations of Code infringements, the Application was not barred by section 34(11).

The respondents' request for dismissal was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability and age brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all correspondence and emails between specific individuals over a two-year period.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal concluded the request was overbroad, not sufficiently particularized, and amounted to a fishing expedition.