Sheri D. Price

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

The respondent filed an incomplete Response, failing to indicate whether it sought deferral based on outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal accepted the Response as sufficiently complete.

Noting that the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure.

The applicant alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress due to her pregnancy and was misled about the circumstances of her termination.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or fraudulent misrepresentation, concluding the applicant freely entered into the settlement after obtaining legal advice.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a labour arbitrator in the handling and settlement of her grievance.

The respondent arbitrator argued the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the doctrine of judicial immunity protects the respondent from the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondents refused to hire him as a truck driver because of his age and disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents maintained that the decision was based on his driving infraction record, his AZ licence status, and his current employment elsewhere.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence credible and concluded that the decision not to hire the applicant was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's request to add three individuals as personal respondents, the respondents' request to remove three other individuals as personal respondents, and the respondents' request to amend their response.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the three individuals, finding that the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of personal liability, particularly since the corporate respondent's vicarious liability under s. 46.3 of the Code does not apply to harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the other personal respondents for similar reasons.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' unopposed request to amend their response.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a WSIB claim.

The respondent subsequently advised that the applicant had returned to work pursuant to a WSIB return to work plan.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that since the WSIB claim had concluded, there was no longer an ongoing concurrent proceeding that could result in inconsistent findings of fact or law.

The applicant, who alleged she was terminated while on maternity leave due to a subsequent pregnancy, requested that her human rights application be expedited under Rule 21.

She argued that advancing pregnancy would make participation physically difficult and emotionally stressful.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the emotional stress and physical difficulty cited were not so uniquely urgent as to distinguish the case from others and warrant priority scheduling.

The applicant alleged that his layoff from the respondent plumbing and heating company was based on his age, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that he was laid off out of seniority while younger, less senior employees were retained.

The Tribunal found that the layoff was due to legitimate business reasons, including a Ministry of Labour order requiring licensed tradespeople on jobsites, which the applicant was not, and a shift away from the residential sector where the applicant primarily worked.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence that age was a factor in the decision.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it did not raise an issue under the Code and was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged a bus driver scrutinized his student identification thoroughly because of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the allegations of differential treatment based on prohibited grounds brought the matter within its jurisdiction, though it noted there remained a real question of whether a prima facie case of discrimination could be established at the merits hearing.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a related complaint before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that under Rule 19, a deferred application cannot typically be reactivated until the other proceeding has concluded, and the applicant identified no circumstances warranting an exception.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding his employment.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside due to economic duress and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an impending layoff.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely chose the permanent layoff option and that the respondent did not knowingly mislead him.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and disability after his firearms were seized and his firearms licence was revoked.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add, remove, and rename parties.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services was added as a respondent on consent, and the City of Ottawa and Chief Firearms Officer were removed.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondent at this preliminary stage, finding it premature to determine whether the institutional respondents would be solely liable for her actions.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of a human rights application pending the conclusion of an internal complaint process and anticipated business changes.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that an internal complaint process is not a concurrent legal proceeding that risks inconsistent findings of fact or law.

The Tribunal also raised the issue of whether the corporate respondent, a telecommunications enterprise, falls under federal jurisdiction and directed the parties to provide submissions on this jurisdictional question.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's claim regarding her termination while on maternity leave.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot dismiss an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a half-day hearing to consider the s. 45.1 request and directed the parties to be prepared to make submissions on whether the Employment Standards Officer's determination constitutes a 'proceeding'.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the corporate and personal respondents.

The corporate respondent filed a Response, but the personal respondent did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a Response by March 31, 2010, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her and deem her to have accepted the allegations.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, the respondent requested production of medical documents from its disability manager's file and objected to the admissibility of the applicant's medical reports without the opportunity to cross-examine the authoring doctors.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant documents from the disability manager's file dating back to 2006.

The Tribunal also ruled that while the medical reports were admissible to show they had been provided to the respondent, no weight would be given to the doctors' opinions regarding accommodation unless they were made available for cross-examination.

Finally, the Tribunal permitted certain witnesses to testify by telephone on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant for criminally harassing one of the personal respondents.

Finding that the facts in the criminal proceeding significantly overlapped with the allegations in the application, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release.

The applicant acknowledged signing the Release but claimed she did not understand the consequences and did not receive all monies owed.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day preliminary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of the Release, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an extension of time to file their Response and an order for the applicant to produce certain documents prior to filing.

The Tribunal denied the request for early document production, finding the respondents did not need the documents to respond to the factual allegations in the Application.

However, noting a personal tragedy suffered by the personal respondent, the Tribunal granted a 14-day extension of time to file the Response.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, age, and reprisal.

The respondents argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and that criminal proceedings had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding it lacked the power to dismiss under the SPPA without a specific rule, and that the criminal proceedings had either not dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations or were still ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant.