Leslie Reaume

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been dealt with in an arbitration proceeding.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to deal with his reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the reprisal allegations were based on the same facts as the discrimination allegations and had been addressed, and that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue the case.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she could not participate due to family responsibilities and lack of means.

When the Tribunal scheduled a hearing, the applicant confirmed she did not intend to participate in the mediation or hearing process under any circumstances.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2011 alleging discrimination in housing based on disability.

Over five years, the applicant failed to meet numerous deadlines, provide requested medical information, or retain counsel due to complex health issues.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer or dismiss the application.

Finding that the applicant was incapable of participating in the hearing process for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal dismissed the application to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, noting that the dismissal was not due to fault and preserved the applicant's right to file a new application if her health improved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, as well as reprisal for a previous application.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, and alternatively, that the individual respondents be removed.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could point to evidence supporting his claims of discrimination and reprisal regarding his sick leave and rumours of an extra-marital affair.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the individual respondents at this stage, as their conduct was central to the reprisal allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, sex, and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing and did not provide updated contact information after agreeing to vacate his apartment in a related Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success due to a lack of particulars and that the applicant's failure to appear constituted abandonment.

The applicant, a person with autism, alleged discrimination in services after being denied access to the respondent's specialized transit service, TransHelp.

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

The Tribunal found that the application against the Regional Municipality of Peel required a full hearing to assess the evidence and the respondent's compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the individual respondents who sat on the eligibility appeal panel, as they had no discretion to deviate from the established assessment criteria.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Canada Post.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because Canada Post appeared to be a federally regulated employer.

The applicant did not respond to the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that Canada Post is a federally regulated enterprise outside the Tribunal's provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination claim regarding the denial of an employment start-up benefit but upheld her claim regarding subcontracting rules.

The applicant alleged new evidence, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and procedural unfairness, including allegations of bias against the adjudicators.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that her arguments were primarily in the nature of an appeal and that the Tribunal's procedures were appropriate.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tribunal adjudicator, alleging discrimination based on place of origin after the adjudicator scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference in a previous matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over decisions made by adjudicators in their adjudicative role.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application must be dismissed due to adjudicative immunity, noting that it is not the Tribunal's role to review decisions of adjudicative bodies.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated enterprise.

The applicant did not contest the federal jurisdiction issue in his response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent bank is a federally regulated employer and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a person with disabilities receiving ODSP benefits, sought to start a business using subcontractors.

She learned that under ODSP policy directive 5.4, expenses paid to subcontractors would not be deducted from her gross business income, effectively imputing their earnings to her and jeopardizing her ODSP eligibility.

She alleged this rule and the denial of an Employment Start-Up Benefit (ESUB) discriminated against her based on disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the ESUB claim but found the subcontracting rules discriminatory, as they failed to account for the different capacities of persons with disabilities to engage in self-employment and were not justified by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease applying the rules, pay the applicant's start-up costs, and review its self-employment directives.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability following his termination from employment.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a related union grievance.

After an arbitrator dismissed the grievances and found no discrimination or reprisal, the respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had explicitly addressed the human rights allegations and provided extensive reasons.

Concluding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was incomplete and potentially outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or provide the requested information within the specified timeframes.

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

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple directions and notices from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the respondents refused or chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to determine next steps.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision upholding a human rights application following a hearing the respondent did not attend.

The respondent's representative claimed his wife received a telephone call from someone purporting to be from the Tribunal, advising that the hearing was cancelled.

The Tribunal found the representative's wife had a clear recollection of the call and noted the applicant had also failed to comply with pre-hearing rules.

Concluding that the circumstances fell within the parameters of a lack of proper notice under Rule 26.5, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and ordered a new hearing.

The applicant, a student at George Brown College, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin after an unpleasant interaction with another student and a facilitator.

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 on speculation rather than evidence connecting the incidents to her Caucasian race or Irish heritage.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Final Decision dismissing his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

He argued that the hearing process was unfair, particularly the use of a teleconference, and disputed the Tribunal's findings on timeliness and the employer's investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had consented to the teleconference hearing and that the applicant was given a full opportunity to present his case.

The respondent requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the determination of his Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim for termination pay.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the ESA proceeding would only deal with termination pay.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding a lack of significant overlap between the issues raised in the human rights application and the ESA claim, and concluding that the risk of inconsistent results was minimal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and subsequently terminated his benefits and employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter by closing the applicant's file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB had not addressed the specific allegations of failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal on various grounds.

The allegations primarily related to child protection proceedings, medical treatment, and benefit entitlements spanning several years.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the allegations either had no reasonable prospect of success, fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.