Leslie Reaume

The applicant, who identifies as Pagan, sought to retain his amputated foot bones following surgery for religious reasons.

The respondent hospital required the bones to be released directly to a funeral home or upon receipt of a burial certificate, which the applicant opposed.

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

Finding that the matter required further evidence regarding the connection between the applicant's religious beliefs and the respondent's policy, as well as the respondent's authority and discretion, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and referred the matter to mediation.

The corporate respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding a contravention of settlement, arguing that the decision was incorrect and that there was confusion about the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case and that the respondent had received clear instructions on how to reschedule the hearing but failed to comply with them.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his personal items, including clothing and money, were lost while he was a patient in the respondent's Crisis Unit.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was dissatisfied with the loss and the respondent's policies, there was no evidence linking the loss of his items to his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a blind candidate for mayor of Toronto, alleged discrimination with respect to services after being excluded from a candidate debate organized by a city councillor.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence linking the applicant's exclusion to his disability, as he was excluded for not being a front-running candidate, and finding that the City of Toronto was not affiliated with the event.

The applicant alleged discrimination in goods, services or facilities on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to offer him a second interview for an internship.

The respondent had cancelled the interview because the applicant was no longer a client of the disability management program through which the internship was arranged.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting the respondent's decision to the applicant's disability.

The applicants filed seven applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent police service.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the applications should proceed.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants advised they would not participate and failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision (2010 HRTO 391) pursuant to section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the request were the same as those dealt with at the hearing or in previous interim decisions.

The Tribunal concluded that the request was an attempt to re-argue the case and that the applicant had not met the burden of establishing any of the factors set out in Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The complainant, a former sales associate, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by two co-workers, racial discrimination by management, and that her employment was terminated as a reprisal for reporting these issues.

The respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the complainant was terminated due to a documented history of performance issues and failure to follow workplace rules.

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting her tendency to exaggerate, evade questions, and blame others for her performance issues.

While a former co-worker provided some corroborating evidence of inappropriate conduct, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she was subjected to sexual harassment or racial discrimination.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was justified by the complainant's disciplinary record and was not an act of reprisal.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age contrary to the Human Rights Code after failing to advance past the assignment phase of a job competition for a Program Effectiveness Analyst position.

The applicant argued his experience was devalued as dated, the assignment unfairly favoured younger candidates who might have access to a recent master's thesis, and the process lacked objective standards.

The Tribunal found that while the competition was flawed and internal candidates were advantaged by the assignment question, there was insufficient evidence to establish that age was a factor in the applicant's failure to advance.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the subject-matter was the same as a 1994 complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that while the current allegations shared a broad theme of workplace racism, they related to events that occurred after the Commission disposed of the original complaint in 1997.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was permitted to proceed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the instructing client was required to attend a conference.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and the respondent failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate such circumstances.

The applicants, who are taxi drivers, alleged that the respondent, a fellow taxi driver, discriminated against them on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin by making derogatory comments about people of Pakistani origin at a public meeting held by the Town of Oakville.

The applicants argued that because they share dispatch services, the comments were made 'in respect of employment' under section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the public meeting was not a work-related event and the respondent attended in his personal capacity to express his own views.

Therefore, the conduct did not fall within the scope of employment.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, creed, record of offences, and reprisal by his employer in the taxi industry.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

The applicant's response did not provide specific examples connecting his general allegations of unfairness to his race or creed, and his reprisal claim lacked a specific act of reprisal for enforcing Code rights.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not raise matters within its jurisdiction.

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

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing that a civil action and a grievance had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting no civil action existed and the grievance was withdrawn without resolving the issues.

The respondent also requested deferral pending an ongoing grievance regarding job vacancies, which the Tribunal denied because it was unclear if the grievance covered the broader accommodation issues raised in the application.

The Power Workers' Union was granted intervenor status due to its interest in potential remedies affecting bargaining unit members.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Following an interim decision that dismissed several allegations, a preliminary hearing was held to address the remaining issues.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to an order dismissing the application and consolidating any outstanding section 34 applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The matter was referred to the Tribunal by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

After the complainant failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference call and the scheduled hearing, and the Commission confirmed it would not adduce evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

The complainant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision regarding social assistance benefits and family status discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was an attempt to re-argue the case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal also addressed post-judgment issues, granting a minor correction requested by the Commission, clarifying the attribution of a word on consent, and granting the respondent an extension of time to comply with the original decision.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, place of origin, and disability.

He claimed he experienced harassment, was denied leave, received false performance assessments, was not properly accommodated upon returning from medical leave, and was ultimately terminated because of his age and disability.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of harassment or discriminatory performance assessments.

The Tribunal also found that the employer reasonably accommodated the complainant upon his return to work by offering a temporary assignment that met his needs.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination was part of a legitimate workforce reduction based on seniority, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents contravened a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint about racial discrimination.

The agreement required the organizational respondent to provide specific anti-racism training to its board and staff.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the training provided by the organizational respondent did not comply with the specific requirements of the settlement agreement, as it was a general harassment training that did not specifically address racism or use an expert in racial discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent to retain an external consultant to conduct the required training and to pay $1,000 in damages to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, and age, as well as reprisal.

The allegations centered on an email from a condominium board member addressing her as 'Miss', which she claimed harmed her reputation by suggesting an improper relationship.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the use of a common salutation does not constitute discrimination under the Code, and there was no evidence of reprisal.