Sheri D. Price

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and other grounds.

The applicant brought a request to add her former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, arguing it would assume liability for the supervisor's conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the supervisor as a personal respondent, noting that her conduct was a central issue and that the Human Rights Code's vicarious liability provisions do not apply to harassment.

The Tribunal also addressed the corporate respondent's counsel ceasing to represent another personal respondent.

The applicant, a 47-year-old man, alleged that the respondent landlord refused to show or rent him a bachelor apartment because of his age and sex.

The respondent explicitly stated he wanted to rent to a 'young girl' student and told the applicant he was 'too old'.

The respondent did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age and sex in respect of occupancy of accommodation.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to retain an expert to draft an anti-discrimination policy and post it in his rental buildings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant requested to consolidate the two applications.

The Tribunal noted significant factual overlap but directed the respondents to file written submissions on the consolidation request before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex regarding the termination of her employment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration concerning the same termination.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, as both challenged the unjustness of the termination and sought reinstatement.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the arbitration process.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement regarding the same facts.

The applicant argued she should not be bound by the release because she did not understand what she was signing due to her mental state and a misunderstanding of its terms.

The Tribunal found the applicant was capable of understanding the release and had chosen to sign it to accept an early retirement offer.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a labour arbitrator discriminated against her when dismissing her discharge grievance.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction over the allegations against the arbitrator.

The Tribunal held that labour arbitrators, as statutory decision-makers, are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity from human rights complaints arising from the execution of their adjudicative duties.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in employment.

The respondents withdrew their consent to mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that an oral hearing be held to determine outstanding jurisdictional issues, including whether the applications were filed out of time, whether the subject matter falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications under section 45.1 of the Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response after the Tribunal sent the application materials by regular mail, though couriered and registered mail were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal declined to immediately proceed in the respondent's absence, citing concerns about actual notice, and directed that the materials be sent to alternate addresses and contacts provided by the applicant, giving the respondent 10 days to file a Response.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the matter by denying the applicant's claim for benefits on the basis that his injury was not work-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, finding that the WSIB did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application, as discrimination on the basis of a non-compensable, non-work-related disability is still prohibited by the Code.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release as part of a termination agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary teleconference hearing to determine the early dismissal request, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposal.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's former trade union intervenor status for the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging sex discrimination in employment and contracts.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by a church hearing committee.

The respondents also raised jurisdictional issues regarding delay and subject-matter.

The Tribunal had scheduled a joint mediation.

The respondents requested that the preliminary issues be adjudicated prior to mediation.

The Tribunal declined, noting its practice is to hold mediation first when parties consent, and directed the respondents to confirm whether they still wished to participate in mediation.

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

After previously amending the ground of discrimination to disability, the applicant requested an order to amend the application to seek additional financial and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request but had delayed filing its response due to confusion over the deadline.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent at this early stage, and directed the respondent to file its response within 14 days.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after OHIP denied coverage for in vitro fertilization required due to her male spouse's infertility.

The respondent failed to file a Response, instead sending a letter disputing the grounds and requesting clarification.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a complete Response in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, noting that the limited exceptions to filing a Response did not apply.

The applicant was also given an opportunity to amend her Application to clarify the grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, ancestry, and reprisal, approximately two years after the last alleged event.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his belief that his union was pursuing a grievance and due to his disability.

The respondent argued the delay was not in good faith and that the application should be deferred as the grievance was still outstanding.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to determine the issues of timeliness and deferral.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration procedure based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant did not make submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and reprisal, more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued she was waiting for the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint and a labour arbitration before filing.

The Tribunal found this was not a good faith reason for delay, as she could have filed a timely application while pursuing other proceedings.

The application was dismissed against all respondents except the labour arbitrator.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the doctrine of judicial immunity protects the arbitrator from the application.

The applicant, a union chief steward, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal by the respondents following a sexual harassment complaint against another union representative.

She sought an interim remedy under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to reinstate her use of a private office at the employer's premises, arguing it was necessary for her safety and to avoid contact with the alleged harasser.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her safety concerns were unsubstantiated and she had alternative locations to perform her union duties.

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

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without providing any explanation.

The respondents attended and were represented.

Due to the applicant's failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Commission and the complainant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the human rights complaint for lack of evidence.

The Commission admitted that its counsel had erroneously advised the unrepresented complainant that he did not need to submit any evidence for the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair to deprive the complainant of a hearing on the merits due to his reasonable reliance on the Commission's incorrect advice.

The request for reconsideration was granted, as the unfairness to the complainant outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, especially since the respondent had never participated in the proceedings.