Sheri D. Price

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent police services board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal had an unwritten rule favouring police officers and sought reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely expressing disagreement with the original decision and attempting to reargue his case, which does not outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional particulars.

The respondent did not oppose the request, provided it could file an additional response and raise a timeliness objection at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, allowing the respondent to file additional submissions and preserving its right to raise the delay objection at the hearing.

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

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited thirty minutes and, receiving no explanation for the absence, dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent infringed her rights.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply or communicate within seven days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The deadline passed without compliance or communication from the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on several procedural issues raised during a conference call.

The Tribunal excluded one of the applicant's proposed witnesses as the evidence amounted to inadmissible similar fact evidence, but permitted another witness to testify regarding her observations.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant portions of her medical and long-term disability files, as well as tax documents related to employment income.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the University of Windsor to produce the applicant's employment records to the parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights infringements but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to exchange and file documents and witness summaries.

After missing the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply within seven days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university regarding her residency performance assessments and probation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Divisional Court had previously dismissed the applicant's judicial review application regarding the same academic decisions, finding them fair and reasonable.

Concluding that the substance of the human rights application was appropriately dealt with in the judicial review proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent relitigation.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to comply with document disclosure rules.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant still intended to pursue the matter.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove two personal respondents from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondents' late request to cancel the scheduled merits hearing in favour of a summary hearing, though it noted the parties should be prepared to address whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success at the merits hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled in-person hearing.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding a related Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that the issue of whether the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code could not be determined until a final decision was reached in that proceeding.

The respondent requested an order suspending the application until the applicant either had the capacity to participate or a litigation guardian was appointed, arguing she lacked mental capacity based on medical notes regarding her financial and professional decision-making.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the medical notes insufficient to rebut the presumption of capacity, especially given a recent doctor's letter confirming her capacity to participate in the proceeding and her written submissions demonstrating understanding.

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of the hearing to retain legal counsel, claiming they did not realize the complexity of the proceeding until receiving Case Assessment Directions.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had notice of the hearing and their disclosure obligations months in advance and failed to provide a valid explanation for not retaining counsel earlier.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances, and directed the respondents to comply with their disclosure obligations prior to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her legal counsel was unavailable due to a prior commitment.

The counsel had not been formally on record, resulting in the Notice of Hearing being sent directly to the applicant.

The respondents consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances warranted an adjournment and granted the request.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that her application was sufficient and disagreed with the decision to convene a summary hearing, but did not address her failure to attend.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and no extraordinary circumstances outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights violations.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries.

The applicant failed to comply with the deadline and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, which warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the respondent home builder discriminated against her based on creed and sex by failing to provide advance notice before sending workers to repair the exterior of her home.

She claimed that being seen by workers through her windows without her hair covered or while inappropriately attired violated her religious beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the applicant's creed-based need for advance notice.

The applicant's reprisal claim was also dismissed as her complaints to Tarion were not protected activities under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights Application alleging that the respondent employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex by terminating her employment because of her pregnancy.

The applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act claim regarding the same termination, which was currently under appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the two proceedings overlapped significantly and that proceeding concurrently would create a risk of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered that the human rights Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure deadlines and only provided his documents, including medical records, three weeks before the hearing.

The self-represented respondent argued it needed more time to review the new materials and prepare a defence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it would be unfair to force the respondent to proceed and cross-examine the applicant without adequate time to prepare.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer.

During the pre-hearing and hearing process, the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions to provide documents and witness statements, and engaged in disrespectful and abusive communications towards the Tribunal and respondent's counsel.

After the first day of hearing, the applicant was directed to provide written confirmation that he would abide by the Tribunal's expectations of appropriate conduct.

The applicant failed to provide this confirmation despite multiple warnings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, and alternatively as an abuse of process.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the basis that it had recently retained counsel who was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction on Scheduling requires extraordinary circumstances for an adjournment.

The Tribunal held that a party's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.