Leslie Reaume

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of a service on the basis of disability.

A three-day hearing was scheduled.

The applicant and his next friend failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of sexual orientation, family status, and marital status after his long-term partner passed away.

The partner lived in an apartment managed by the respondent.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to treat him as a spouse, allowing the deceased's biological family to take control of the apartment and the applicant's personal belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent knew or ought to have known about the 30-year relationship, as the couple had kept it private and never informed the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of sexual orientation, family status, and marital status.

Following the death of his same-sex partner of 30 years, the applicant alleged the respondent housing corporation failed to treat him as a spouse, resulting in the deceased's biological family taking control of the apartment and the applicant's personal belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, as they lived in separate units and kept their relationship private.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and receipt of public assistance after a failed attempt to purchase a co-ownership apartment unit.

The moving respondents requested to identify approximately 25 independent unit owners and their tenants as affected persons, arguing they could be impacted by the requested remedies.

The Tribunal dismissed the request at this stage, finding that naming the additional owners and tenants would unduly complicate the hearing on liability, as they were not alleged to have breached the Code.

The Tribunal noted the request could be revisited before determining the appropriate remedy if the applicant is successful on the merits.

The complainant, a probationary receptionist, was terminated on her first day back to work after suffering a miscarriage.

The employer alleged the termination was due to excessive absenteeism and performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to document a pattern of absenteeism other than the complainant's pregnancy-related appointments and miscarriage.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's pregnancy and its complications were factors in her termination, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the complainant $10,000 for injury to dignity, two months' lost wages, and $2,500 for outplacement training, along with public interest remedies including mandatory human rights training for the employer.

The applicant alleged discrimination on multiple grounds during a police interview involving a translator, which led to criminal charges and her eventual conviction.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the allegations of discrimination were specifically raised and dealt with by the trial judge during the criminal proceeding, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and dismissed the application.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint against her union and its president, alleging interference with her accommodation process.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had been appropriately dealt with by a settlement agreement reached in a Grievance Settlement Board proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the settlement agreement explicitly covered only the complainant's claims against her employer and did not extend to the outstanding human rights complaint against the union and its president.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability, claiming he was asked to leave the respondents' store because of his service dog.

The respondents argued the applicant was asked to leave due to his aggressive and belligerent behaviour, not because of the dog.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant has a disability and relies on his dog, the evidence established he was asked to leave the store because he provoked a confrontation and behaved inappropriately.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging racial discrimination with respect to services at a restaurant.

They subsequently brought a request to add the manager and waitress involved in the incident as personal respondents.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the employees were acting within the scope of their duties and that the request was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applications were filed exactly one year after the incident and the applicants would have named the employees initially had they known their identities.

The Tribunal treated the request as a timely request for particulars rather than an extension of time, and found no prejudice in adding the individuals as respondents.

The Society of Energy Professionals filed a Request to Intervene in the application, stating it is the union to which the respondent belongs.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Society failed to set out a sufficient basis for participating, did not adequately explain its relationship with the applicant or another named individual, and failed to specify the terms on which it wished to participate.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that while some facts overlap, the nature of the claims and the available remedies are different.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin during his postulancy process to become an Anglican Priest.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the postulancy relationship does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the postulancy period involves interactions that provide a mutual benefit, satisfying the preliminary threshold for a service relationship.

The respondents' request to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against his former supervisor.

The respondent and the applicant were both employed by a transportation company that operated interprovincially and was federally regulated.

The Tribunal directed submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the overall context of the complaint was the employment relationship at a federally regulated employer, it lacked jurisdiction over the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging racial discrimination with respect to services at the respondent's racetrack.

They brought a request to have their applications heard together and to add two employees as personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together on consent.

The Tribunal further ordered the respondent to provide contact information for the employees so they could be given notice of the request to add them as respondents.

The union, representing the applicant's bargaining unit, requested intervenor status in a human rights application against the employer.

The union argued that potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights, policies, and procedures.

As no parties opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union non-party intervenor status to make final submissions on remedies.

The CAW Local 1000, the bargaining agent for the applicant, brought a request to intervene in the human rights application.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome because the collective agreement it administers contains harassment and discrimination provisions.

The request was unopposed by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the union non-party intervenor status, with the extent of its participation to be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application on the basis that the applicant had participated in a voluntary resignation program, received compensation, and signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the release out of desperation because her long-term disability benefits were ending and the respondent had failed to accommodate her with a full-time position.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence at this early stage to conclude that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as the circumstances surrounding the release were intertwined with the duty to accommodate allegations.

The request for early dismissal was denied and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The individual respondents, supported by the corporate respondent school board, requested to be removed as parties to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination on the grounds of race and disability.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the individuals should be held personally accountable.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had assumed liability for the employees' conduct, was in the best position to remedy the alleged systemic discrimination, and that removing the individuals would not prejudice the complainant's right to a full hearing or the availability of remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested to defer the application because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance before a board of arbitration.

The applicant's union, OPSEU, requested to intervene to address jurisdiction and choice of forum.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and set a schedule for the parties to file submissions on the respondents' request to defer.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had participated in a voluntary resignation program and signed a full and final release that included claims under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal determined that the issue of the release should be decided as a preliminary matter and scheduled a hearing to afford the parties a chance to make oral submissions, as required by section 43(2) of the Code.