Who is Leslie Reaume?

Leslie Reaume is a vice-chair at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario with 325 decisions on record from 2008 to 2017. Key areas include human rights, employment and labour law, administrative law.

What tribunal does Leslie Reaume sit on?

Leslie Reaume sits on the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

What areas of law does Leslie Reaume decide?

Leslie Reaume's most common areas include Human Rights (325 decisions), Employment and Labour Law (97 decisions), Administrative Law (94 decisions). Leslie Reaume has handled 325 decisions across 8 areas.

How many decisions has Leslie Reaume made?

Leslie Reaume has 325 decisions on record from 2008 to 2017.

Who frequently appears before Leslie Reaume?

Representatives who frequently appear before Leslie Reaume include David Patacairk, Alexandre Papouchine, Yavar Hameed.

Leslie Reaume — Vice-Chair

HRTODec 28, 2017

Human rights application alleging age discrimination in housing dismissed following applicant's request to withdraw.

The applicant, a 47-year-old member of the Canadian Armed Forces, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being denied the opportunity to consider housing in a community restricted to individuals aged 50 and over.

During the hearing, it became apparent the applicant lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate disadvantage.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application.

The respondents opposed the withdrawal, seeking a merits decision to insulate their housing project from future claims.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal, noting it would not hold a public interest hearing solely to provide the respondents with a broad declaration, and dismissed the application.

Dwyre v. The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation, 2017 HRTO 1709

HRTODec 22, 2017

Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence connecting workplace treatment to prohibited grounds.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex, including sexual harassment.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's factual allegations as true, there was no evidence connecting the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground under the Code.

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

Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2017 HRTO 1699

HRTODec 19, 2017

Application dismissed because the applicant failed to request reactivation within the 60-day time limit.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance.

The grievance process concluded in November 2016, but the applicant did not file her request to reactivate until May 2017, well beyond the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the time limit and was not mentally prepared to proceed.

The Tribunal found the six-month delay to be significant and not adequately explained, concluding that the failure to inform herself of the Rules did not meet the test of good faith.

The application was dismissed.

Deborah Reyner v. G.E. Canada - Peterborough, 2017 HRTO 1679

HRTODec 19, 2017

Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file documents or respond to directions.

The applicant failed to file hearing documents and witness statements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to advise whether he intended to participate in the scheduled hearing.

The applicant did not respond to any of the directions.

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

Wilson v. Ceratec, 2017 HRTO 1682

HRTODec 15, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with disclosure directions.

The applicant failed to comply with a Tribunal direction to disclose relevant documents.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to participate in the proceeding and comply with the disclosure direction, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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

Talbot v. 927912 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 1665

HRTONov 7, 2017

Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to provide new determinative evidence or show jurisprudential conflict.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's submissions, which included medical evidence, legal memoranda, and emails, but found they amounted to re-argument of her case.

The Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor was the original decision in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Donna Magee v. Toronto District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1470

HRTOOct 16, 2017

Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing contravention of settlement application denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging the respondent school board contravened a settlement agreement.

The applicant argued the school board breached confidentiality by disclosing its own contravention application to two individuals who were respondents in the original application but did not sign the minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the original decision conflicted with established case law or Tribunal procedure, or that the matter involved an issue of general or public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Nash v. Ottawa Carleton District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1363

HRTOOct 13, 2017

Application alleging age discrimination in fishing licence exemptions dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being fined for fishing without a licence, arguing that exemptions for individuals under 18 or over 65 are discriminatory.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Code explicitly permits the age-based distinctions in question and that the applicant could not demonstrate disadvantage.

The application was dismissed.

Paroski v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2017 HRTO 1354

HRTOSep 25, 2017

Human rights application regarding board recruitment dismissed at summary hearing for lack of evidence.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, disability, sex, and association after he was not selected for a volunteer board position with the respondent.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based entirely on speculation and that he could point to no evidence to support his belief that his protected characteristics were factors in the respondent's decision.

The application was dismissed.

Konesavarathan v. Ontario Public Interest Research Group – Guelph, 2017 HRTO 1256

HRTOSep 18, 2017

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as nuclear facilities are federally regulated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Ontario Power Generation, specifically at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that employment matters concerning nuclear facilities are federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court of Canada and previous Tribunal jurisprudence establishing that nuclear power sector employees fall under federal jurisdiction for human rights matters.

The application was dismissed.

Dragea v. Ontario Power Generation, 2017 HRTO 1216

HRTOAug 21, 2017

Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without reasonable explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and place of origin after the police and Crown declined to pursue criminal charges against his former business partner.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's explanation that he was exhausting other avenues of redress was not a sufficient good faith reason to extend the time for filing.

The application was dismissed.

Diaz v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 HRTO 1091

HRTOAug 8, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend scheduled teleconference summary hearing.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend or contact the Tribunal on the day of the hearing.

The applicant emailed the next day claiming he could not connect to the call, but the respondent had no difficulty connecting.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, finding the applicant's explanation unpersuasive and noting his failure to act with diligence.

Gillespie v. Mercedes Corp., 2017 HRTO 1012

HRTOAug 8, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; disability did not excuse delay in filing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her former employer, the Toronto District School Board, spanning over 20 years.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced significant symptoms, she had demonstrated the capacity to take other complex steps to address her allegations during the delay period, including obtaining legal advice and meeting with senior officials.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as out of time.

Magee v. Toronto District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1013

HRTOJul 28, 2017

Summary hearing motion to dismiss denied; factual dispute regarding rejected columns requires full hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability after the respondent newspaper refused to publish his volunteer columns.

The respondent argued that the columns were not rejected but required editing for structure and clarity, and that the applicant declined further assignments.

Following a summary hearing by teleconference, the Tribunal found a factual dispute requiring evidence from both parties and directed that the application advance to a full hearing.

Konesavarathan v. The Ontarion Inc., 2017 HRTO 967

HRTOJul 20, 2017

Human rights applications alleging discrimination in fire inspection and electrical repairs dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed after his apartment was inspected following a fire in the unit above him.

He claimed the fire department targeted his unit because he grows medical marijuana, and that the Electrical Safety Authority and its employee discriminated against him during the subsequent electrical repair and reconnection process.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the respondents' actions were connected to his disability or creed rather than standard safety protocols.

Mark Vincent v. The Corporation of the City of Peterborough, Electrical Safety Authority and Jenn Vautour, 2017 HRTO 912

HRTODec 29, 2016

Age discrimination claim against new contractor allowed to proceed; other respondents and grounds dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Storm failed to hire him because of his age, race, and association when it took over a coil repair contract from his former employer, Outotec.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against Outotec and AMD, removing them as respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim against Storm to proceed to a full hearing, but dismissed the other grounds for lack of evidence.

Legere v. Storm Roll & Coil Repair Limited, 2016 HRTO 1689

HRTODec 9, 2016

Human rights application deferred pending outcome of concurrent grievance arbitration addressing the same accommodation issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the employer failed to accommodate her.

A concurrent grievance was filed regarding the same accommodation issues, with arbitration scheduled.

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

The applicant objected, arguing the arbitration would not cover all issues or provide the same remedies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the arbitrator has jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and address the overlapping issues, avoiding the risk of inconsistent findings.

Crawford v. Sodexo Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1595

HRTODec 5, 2016

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The organizational respondent requested the removal of an individual respondent and the dismissal of the application by way of a summary hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to these requests or to a subsequent Tribunal direction requiring a response.

The applicant also failed to file a Reply contesting the respondents' version of events.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Bryan Hallett v. Oxford Properties Group, 2016 HRTO 1562

HRTODec 5, 2016

Request for reconsideration of dismissed human rights application denied for failing to meet Rule 26.5 criteria.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a final decision dismissing her human rights application against multiple respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to justify reconsideration.

The applicant's materials largely repeated previous allegations and attempted to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

D.D. v. CAS (Nipissing and Parry Sound), 2016 HRTO 1557

HRTONov 24, 2016

Request to remove individual respondents denied as their conduct was a central issue in the discrimination claim.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents or dismiss the allegations against them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual conduct of the respondents was a central issue and that a remedy could potentially be ordered against them personally.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case, noting that the matter was not appropriate for a summary hearing.

Dwyre v. The Parc Anderson Park Lease Non-Profit Corporation, 2017 HRTO 1709

Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2017 HRTO 1699

Deborah Reyner v. G.E. Canada - Peterborough, 2017 HRTO 1679

Wilson v. Ceratec, 2017 HRTO 1682

Talbot v. 927912 Ontario Limited, 2017 HRTO 1665

Donna Magee v. Toronto District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1470

Nash v. Ottawa Carleton District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1363

Paroski v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2017 HRTO 1354

Konesavarathan v. Ontario Public Interest Research Group – Guelph, 2017 HRTO 1256

Dragea v. Ontario Power Generation, 2017 HRTO 1216

Diaz v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 HRTO 1091

Gillespie v. Mercedes Corp., 2017 HRTO 1012

Magee v. Toronto District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1013

Konesavarathan v. The Ontarion Inc., 2017 HRTO 967

Mark Vincent v. The Corporation of the City of Peterborough, Electrical Safety Authority and Jenn Vautour, 2017 HRTO 912

Legere v. Storm Roll & Coil Repair Limited, 2016 HRTO 1689

Crawford v. Sodexo Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1595

Bryan Hallett v. Oxford Properties Group, 2016 HRTO 1562

D.D. v. CAS (Nipissing and Parry Sound), 2016 HRTO 1557

Hardinge v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, 2016 HRTO 1503

Applicant

Counsel

Counsel for Tania Bloomfield, Jonathan Cohen, Davina Blenman, Zoraida Van Ael, Nina Sengupta, Christine MacDonell and Sarah Hicks

Counsel for the Commission

Counsel for the Respondents

Counsel for Toronto District School Board

for Akbar Ali

for ArcelorMittal Dofasco

for ARCH Legal Clinic

for Audi Mississauga

for CAPREIT

for Eglinton-Bayview Physiotherapy Centre and Toula Reppas

for Great-West Life

for Hellenic Home for the Aged Inc. and Kosta Kostouros

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Finance, Marion Crane, Helmut Zisser

for Houselink Community Homes

for Irmela Murphy and Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

for James White

for Jean-Pierre Juneau, 2117125 Ontario Inc. o/a Caldwell and Associates Property Management, and Named Individual

for Jennette Frost

for Kevin Dhinsa

for Lucy Troisi

for Manulife Financial

for Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 971

for Morneau Sheppell Ltd.

for Niagara Health System, Carl Sebasta

for Outotec (Canada) Ltd.

for Peter Wilson

for P & H Foods Division of Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, Reg Philips, Tracy Vanness-Brozoska, Craig Shaw and Luc Lacelle

for Ram Shakyaver

for Ryan Baker, Brendan Stevenson, Michael Limsiaco, David Russell

for St. Joseph’s Health Centre

for Storm Roll & Coil Repair Limited

for Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

for the Applicant

for the Applicants

for the Chief of Police and Toronto Police Service

for the Children’s Aid Society of the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound and Kristine Smith

for the City of Toronto, Mark Lawson, Ann Ulusoy, Arthur Beauregard, Donna Kovachis, Kathy Wiele and Don Boyle

for the College of Physicians and Surgeons

for the Commission

for the Complainant

for the Complainant and for Darlene Hendershott and himself

for the Complainant/Applicant

for the Complainant Chad Aiken

for the Complainant Dimeji Temidire

for the Complainants and Applicants

for the District of Nipissing Social Services Administrative Board

for the Hamilton Police Association

for the Hamilton Police Services Board and Chief Mullan

for the individual Respondents

for the Intervenor

for the James W. Stewart Medicine Professional Corporation and B.A. Demers Medicine Professional Corporation

for the Jean-Jacques Primeau

for the Kelly J. Morgan Psychotherapy/Assessments

for the Legal Department Paralegal

for the North Bay Regional Health Centre

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

for the Personal Respondent James White

for the Personal Respondents