Kingsley Laurin

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $10,000 and fulfill other non-monetary obligations.

The central issue was whether the term 'the respondents' in the settlement agreement applied to all three named respondents, including a former manager who was no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found the term latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of the negotiating history.

The Tribunal concluded that the corporate respondent and its president were jointly and severally liable for the settlement obligations, but the former manager was not.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent and its president to pay the $10,000 with pre- and post-judgment interest, but declined to award additional compensation for the breach.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's complaint to the College of Nurses of Ontario and a judicial review in an unrelated case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the College complaint was only at the investigation stage, did not address allegations of discrimination, and did not involve the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal also found that deferring for an unrelated judicial review would cause undue delay and was highly speculative.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent is engaged in international and interprovincial trucking, which is a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant provided no evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal found that the business falls within federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the owner and manager of the organizational respondent as an individual respondent, and to amend the application to include disability and additional remedies.

The respondents consented to the amendments but opposed adding the individual respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a compelling juridical reason to add the individual respondent because the organizational respondent would not be vicariously liable for the alleged harassment under section 5(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of medical documents relating to a witness's doctor visits and more detailed witness statements from the respondent.

The Tribunal found the medical documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's claim that the applicant was terminated for performance reasons, ordering their production with unrelated medical information redacted.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide revised witness statements particularizing the alleged performance issues.

The applicant, an Aboriginal woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and contracts by a car dealership and its owner.

The applicant had leased a vehicle and fell behind on payments.

The personal respondent sent a letter terminating the lease, threatening criminal charges for fraud and theft, and stating 'Typical Indian' in reference to her failure to pay.

The Tribunal found the initial refusal to lease was out of time under s. 34 of the Code.

However, the Tribunal held that the letter constituted serious discrimination based on Aboriginal ancestry, relying on harmful stereotypes.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but declined to order a requested $10,000 donation to a health foundation.

The applicant, the only female technician at an antique car restoration business, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, and family status, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of a poisoned work environment, sabotage, failure to accommodate childcare, and failure to investigate.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was subjected to discriminatory discipline when she was reprimanded for using vulgar language, while male co-workers who used similar language were not disciplined.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's termination, which occurred immediately after she refused to sign the discriminatory written warning, constituted a reprisal for asserting her human rights.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $15,680 for lost wages.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a request for a non-monetary remedy, specifically reinstatement to an accommodated position.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

Applying the factors from Wozenilek, the Tribunal allowed the amendment, noting it raised no new facts, was made well in advance of the hearing, and was unopposed.

The applicant brought multiple human rights applications against various taxi companies and the City of Toronto.

During a teleconference hearing to address preliminary issues, the applicant withdrew her allegations against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal and issued directions regarding the representation of a non-participating respondent, the potential consolidation of the applications, and the scheduling of a further hearing to determine whether an additional corporate respondent should be added.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add the ground of disability and to correct the name of the corporate respondent.

The respondents did not respond to these requests.

The Tribunal granted both amendments, noting the disability ground arose from facts alleged in the respondents' own response and there was no prejudice.

Additionally, a lawyer consulted by the respondents requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing due to his unavailability.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, holding that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The applicant sought an order to add Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Co. as a respondent, arguing it was a successor corporation to his former employer, Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new company was a complete stranger to the application, having purchased assets after the alleged discrimination occurred, and there was an insufficient relationship between the two companies to hold the new company liable.