Leslie Reaume

The applicant, a female dispatcher in the Communications Division of the City of Brockville Fire Department, alleged sex discrimination against her employer and union regarding differences in wages, experience pay, breaks, and scheduling compared to firefighters in other divisions.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the equal wages claim was beyond the scope of the original complaint.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the differences in benefits were based on classification and function, not sex, and dismissed the applications due to insufficient evidence of discrimination.

The applicant, a single parent, applied for membership in the respondent housing co-operative.

His application was denied on the basis of a high debt-to-income ratio, which the respondent calculated by assuming he paid child support due to his family status.

The respondent did not attend the hearing to rebut the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's assumption constituted discrimination on the basis of family status in the provision of accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to offer the applicant the first available suitable unit and awarded $1,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The complainant, a 15-year-old mother of twins, lived with and was dependent on her parents.

She applied for social assistance under the Ontario Works Act.

She was denied benefits for herself and received reduced benefits for her children because she lived with her parents.

She alleged discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the claim regarding benefits for herself, finding that minors living with their parents are generally ineligible.

However, the Tribunal found that reducing the benefits for her children solely because she lived with her parents constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the lost benefits and to cease considering whether a minor parent lives with their own parents when calculating benefits for the minor parent's children.

The applicant, an 18-year-old sales associate, alleged age discrimination after being dismissed for misusing an employee discount card.

He claimed the respondents took advantage of his youth by pressuring him to admit theft and sign a repayment agreement without allowing him to speak to his parents.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a link between his age and the circumstances of his dismissal.

Finding that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal directed the matter to proceed and ordered the respondents to file their response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to the late filing of the respondents' book of authorities, which was granted.

The applicant also requested the production of files from the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to a previous complaint, arguing they were relevant to his reprisal allegations against the respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for production, finding no evidence that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues to be addressed at the preliminary hearing.

The parties sought on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2011, due to a death in the family of one of the respondents' witnesses.

The Tribunal found this constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing proceed on the scheduled dates for the applicant's case, and then be adjourned to a new date for the respondents' evidence.

The applicant, a landed immigrant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his interactions with the respondent while attempting to register for an employment assistance program for internationally trained engineers.

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

The applicant admitted he had no evidence beyond his own suspicions to support his allegations of nepotism and discrimination.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of mistreatment were accepted, there was no evidence connecting his experience to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, alleged that her failure to successfully complete a twelve-week assessment verification process (AVP) at Queens University was due to discrimination based on race, place of origin, age, and family status.

The respondent maintained that the applicant failed due to significant deficits in her clinical skills, despite receiving extensive support and supervision.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, concluding that the respondent's explanation regarding the applicant's skill deficits was more consistent with the preponderance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear and did not contact the Tribunal to seek an adjournment.

The applicant also failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The complainant requested disclosure of the names and photographs of the original holders of standard taxi cab licences.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the information not arguably relevant to the issues in the case.

Because the City stopped issuing standard taxi licences in 1995 and the licences were transferable, the original holders' identities would not reliably indicate the racial composition of licence holders during the relevant period.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, arguing that the respondent was aware of his relationship with the deceased at the time of death.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue the case and had not established any of the required factors for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of names and photographs of directors and shareholders of corporate taxicab licence holders to determine their race and ethnicity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the corporation holds the licence and does not have a race, and that looking behind the corporate structure was not warranted in these circumstances.

A separate request to correlate names and photos already received was granted on agreed terms of confidentiality.

The respondents, an employer and a union, brought requests to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaints under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the complaints had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had appropriately dealt with the allegations against the union in a section 74 duty of fair representation application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the employer's request, finding that a grievance settlement between the employer and the union, which the complainant refused to sign and which did not explicitly address discrimination, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations against the employer.

The applicant, who lives in a condominium unit, sought an interim remedy to be relieved from the respondent's rule requiring him to transport his dog in a wagon or cart on common grounds, alleging it failed to accommodate his physical disability.

The Tribunal applied Rule 23 and found the application had merit, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and it was just and appropriate to grant the request.

The interim remedy was granted subject to conditions regarding leashing, entry/exit routes, and elevator usage times.

The complainant, a physiotherapist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status after his services at the Hellenic Home were terminated.

The complainant was married to the Administrator and Director of Care at the facility where he worked.

The Tribunal found that while the initial decision to remove him from the facility was based on his marital status, it was a reasonable and bona fide qualification to prevent a conflict of interest, as his wife had supervisory responsibility over his work.

A subsequent decision to remove him from all facilities was found to be based on his inappropriate conduct rather than his marital status.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, and family status.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither party attended.

The Tribunal was satisfied that both parties had notice of the hearing.

Due to the non-attendance of both parties, the application was dismissed.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment during her graduate studies.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation and signed minutes of settlement.

The complainant subsequently refused to sign the final disposition form, arguing she was misled during mediation regarding the respondent's responsibility for a stipend shortfall.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to set aside the settlement, noting the complainant was represented by counsel during mediation and actively pursued the stipend issue before agreeing to the settlement.

The complaint was disposed of pursuant to section 40 of the Code.

The respondent requested that the human rights complaint be dismissed on the basis that the parties had reached an oral settlement agreement.

The complainant agreed to the monetary compensation but refused to sign the draft minutes of settlement due to confidentiality and liability clauses.

The Tribunal found that the parties agreed on the fundamental terms of a monetary payment and a full and final release.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the agreed sum and the complainant to provide the release, resolving the complaint without deciding whether section 49.5 of the Code applies to oral agreements.

The respondent, VideoComm Technologies Inc., filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The respondent argued that facts were not considered, there were discrepancies in evidence, and it was denied the right to legal counsel.

The Tribunal found that the request was an attempt to re-argue the case and appeal the decision, and that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The request for reconsideration was denied.