Sheri D. Price

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance and arbitration procedure.

The applicant opposed the deferral and requested that the application be expedited due to her fragile mental state.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were part of an ongoing grievance process and that the adjudicator had the statutory authority to determine the human rights issues.

To avoid potential inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application and denied the request to expedite.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration procedure.

The application alleged failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the central issues of accommodation and reprisal were not covered by the ongoing grievances.

The respondents Petroff Partnership Architects and Gary Freeman requested to be removed as parties to the human rights application, arguing they were never the applicant's employers or agents of the employer.

The applicant did not respond to the request and the other respondents consented.

The Tribunal found that the application did not allege dealings in respect of employment or any other social area covered by the Code against these two respondents.

The request was granted and Petroff and Freeman were removed as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on record of offences.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being sent the Application twice to different addresses.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified deadline, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice or participation from the respondent under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and age, nearly two and a half years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was ignorant of her rights until a friend advised her she had a human rights case 18 months after the termination.

The Tribunal found that mere ignorance of rights does not establish good faith, especially when the applicant failed to make reasonable inquiries.

Furthermore, the applicant delayed an additional 10 months after allegedly learning of her rights before filing the application.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was incurred in good faith because he believed his union was pursuing the issue through a grievance and because his disability made completing the application stressful.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing that the application be delivered to the respondent for submissions on the delay issue before making a final determination.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant's trade union had filed a grievance raising the same facts and issues, specifically the failure to accommodate the applicant by allowing him to work from home.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that the applicant could seek to reactivate the application if the grievance process did not resolve the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and numerous other respondents, including the labour arbitrator who upheld her termination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on three issues: whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the adjudicative decisions of a labour arbitrator, whether all named respondents are properly parties to the application, and whether her alleged illness constitutes a 'disability' within the meaning of the Code.

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

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified date, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination by the respondents in the provision of police services.

The institutional respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the institutional respondent to file a Response by August 10, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging sex discrimination and termination during maternity leave.

The respondent argued deferral was appropriate because the applicant had threatened a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that since no civil proceeding had actually been commenced, there was no other legal proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, claiming she was harassed and terminated after a manager overheard her complaining about a coworker's dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not allege facts related to a 'record of offences' as defined in the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness not tied to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of an employment discrimination application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination.

The applicant acknowledged signing the release but argued she did so under duress and without legal advice.

The Tribunal noted that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the release.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisals in housing on the basis of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted an extension to July 31, 2009, to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant received proper notice.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated while pregnant.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because he was absent from work caring for his terminally ill wife.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the grievance was not proceeding in a timely manner and that deferral would cause undue hardship given the applicant's inability to access necessary medications for his wife following the termination of his benefits.

The complainant, a former police constable with the Peel Regional Police Services Board, sought to add the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) as a respondent to her human rights complaint.

The complaint alleged discrimination and reprisals by Peel after she left to join the OPP.

The Tribunal applied the Payne test and found that the facts alleged, if proven, could not lead to a finding that the OPP violated the complainant's rights under the Code.

Furthermore, adding the OPP at this stage would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the complaint, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The request to add the OPP as a party was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the complainant's human rights complaint.

The Commission submitted that its counsel had misread an earlier interim decision and erroneously advised the unrepresented complainant that no evidence was required for the written hearing.

The Tribunal directed the complainant and the respondent to provide written submissions on whether the Request for Reconsideration should be granted before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, record of offences, association, and reprisals against her former employer, union, and numerous individuals.

Upon initial review, the Tribunal noted that the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit and that the allegations did not clearly connect to prohibited grounds under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and why the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.