Leslie Reaume

Following a finding of reprisal and discrimination, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedy for the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to award lost wages, finding the applicant's wage loss was not directly attributable to the respondents' conduct.

However, to remedy the loss of opportunity caused by the respondents' reprisal, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to offer the applicant the opportunity to become a shareholder at fair market value as of April 2007.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to retain a human rights professional to review and improve their policies for selecting shareholders.

The respondents requested an order removing the individual respondent and striking certain paragraphs from an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the individual respondent, noting he was alleged to be the primary decision-maker who did not renew the applicant's contract, rather than merely an instrument of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also declined to strike paragraphs related to the applicant's earnings and the impact of the alleged events, leaving those issues for the hearing adjudicator.

The requests were denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application without a full hearing or mediation, and reiterated his arguments regarding subtle manifestations of racism.

The Tribunal found that these issues were already carefully considered in the original decision and that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in handling the testimony of a respondent witness and disagreed with the factual findings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and that there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify a reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Despite clear directions and warnings from the Tribunal that failure to attend would result in dismissal, the applicant's Next Friend refused to attend the scheduled hearing, stating an intention to seek judicial review instead.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate her deferred human rights application five months after the 60-day time limit expired following the conclusion of her Grievance Settlement Board proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, as she had been specifically directed to the reactivation rules and deadlines in the original deferral decision.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on race, colour, and ethnic origin after being reassigned to a different floor without notice or regard to seniority.

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

Finding no direct or indirect evidence connecting the employer's actions to a prohibited ground under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on sex following her termination.

The respondents argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a settlement agreement and release resolving the applicant's grievance.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of capacity to invalidate the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for having no reasonable prospect of success regarding post-termination events.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment approximately one year and seventeen days after the last alleged incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had attempted to file within the one-year limitation period but was delayed by erroneous legal advice, insufficient postage, and a postal strike.

Finding that the delay was incurred in good faith and that the respondents suffered no substantial prejudice, the Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the application.

In a prior decision, the Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by terminating the applicant based in part on her disability, and awarded damages for injury to dignity.

In this decision on remedy, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's outstanding claim for lost employment insurance benefits.

The applicant sought compensation for 21 weeks of lost parental leave benefits, arguing she would have received them had she remained employed.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her entitlement to the additional benefits or that the respondent was responsible for the loss, particularly given her failure to mitigate her losses.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination in services after being discharged from an Intensive Behavioural Intervention program.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also concluded that the allegations, if true, could not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

The respondent Frost requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the allegations, spanning from September 2007 to March 2011, constituted a series of incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant alleged a series of similar incidents against the same supervisor, the last of which fell within the 12-month time period prior to filing.

The Tribunal concluded the allegations related to a series of incidents within the meaning of the Code and declined to dismiss the application as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (knee injury) with respect to her employment, claiming her employer failed to accommodate her need for rest breaks and that her supervisor mistreated her when she requested accommodation.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the employer's sick leave form and the location of rest breaks, finding no evidence connecting the employer's actions to the applicant's disability and noting the lack of medical evidence supporting her preferred accommodation.

The Tribunal allowed the allegations of mistreatment by the supervisor to proceed, provided the applicant files full particulars within 14 days.

The organizational and individual respondents filed a request to remove the individual respondent from the human rights proceeding.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found that the allegations against the individual respondent were central to the applicant's claim of discrimination and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal concluded that if an infringement is found, it may be appropriate to make an order against the individual respondent personally.

The request to remove the individual respondent was dismissed.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to include a claim for $20,000 in general damages after retaining counsel.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting that no new factual allegations were raised and the remedy was reasonably connected to the impact described in the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing based on place of origin and ethnic origin.

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

The applicant alleged that a worker entered his unit without proper notice, was rude, and that the police were called, resulting in him being taken to the hospital and his driver's licence being suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin or ethnic origin.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour and sex against her supervisor regarding a comment about a washroom break and subsequent discipline for insubordination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and considered a request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination allegation regarding the comment for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence beyond the applicant's perception linking the comment to her race or gender.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the discipline under section 45.1, finding that the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with and settled in a prior grievance process.

The individual respondents in a human rights application requested an order for further particulars, arguing that the applicant's allegations were framed in general terms.

The applicant opposed the request, believing that the Tribunal's acceptance of his application precluded such a request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the respondents are entitled to know precisely what is alleged against them to prepare their case, and ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars.

The parties requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) regarding allegations against the individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the HPARB process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing.

The applicant explained his absence by stating he was in police custody at the time.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with Tribunal rules, failed to confirm his attendance prior to his arrest, and provided no sufficient explanation for why he did not arrange for someone to notify the Tribunal of his detention.