Sheri D. Price

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

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release as part of a grievance settlement concerning the same facts.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of the release, as section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance, with the last incident occurring more than five years prior.

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

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and was not satisfied it was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents submitted that the application should be deferred as the facts are part of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties and the union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

At the hearing, the applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the remedy sought in her Application to include ongoing wage losses, severance and termination pay, and compensation for lost benefits.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Application.

The Tribunal also reminded the parties of their obligations under Rule 16 to file and deliver any documents upon which they intend to rely at least 45 days prior to the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of age and sex in respect of accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the matter to proceed by way of written hearing because the respondent chose not to participate.

The Tribunal directed the applicant and the Commission to file evidence in affidavit form.

Neither the applicant nor the Commission filed any evidence or submissions, relying solely on their pleadings.

Applying the principle that mere pleadings are insufficient to establish an evidentiary basis for findings of fact in a written hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after she was unsuccessful in a job competition.

The respondent had told her she needed to improve her interview skills.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether she had a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no facts were alleged to establish that the applicant had a disability or that her interview skills were affected by a disability.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent union grievance that raised the same facts and issues, specifically regarding a promotional assessment score.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that concurrent proceedings could lead to inconsistent findings of fact, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent refused to provide light duties and terminated his employment in 1986.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the 22-year delay in filing.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the delay or demonstrate it was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be expedited under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, citing financial hardship resulting from the respondent forcing her to take medical leave without pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses do not constitute urgent circumstances that would undermine the Tribunal's ability to conduct a fair and just hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by his former employer's supervisor.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's trade union had filed two grievances based on the same facts and issues, which were still in progress.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as the facts and issues were part of an ongoing grievance and arbitration process, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the arbitration hearing.

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

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after she was not promoted to a Frontline Counsellor position.

The applicant claimed her employer told her she needed to improve her interview skills, which she alleged constituted a disability.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her interview skills qualify as a disability under section 10 of the Human Rights Code, in order to determine if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Ministry of Transportation discriminated against him on the basis of age by requiring him to submit to a driving test because he is 80 years of age or older.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Tribunal found that section 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that the testing requirements for drivers aged 80 and over apply despite the Human Rights Code.

Pursuant to section 47(2) of the Code, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the testing requirements contravene the Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add a personal respondent to her human rights application.

The applicant sought to serve the proposed respondent at the corporate respondent's address, but the corporate respondent indicated he was no longer employed there.

The Tribunal held that under Rule 19.2, the proposed respondent has an interest in the request and must be served before the Tribunal will consider adding him as a party.

The applicant was directed to deliver the Application and Request to the proposed respondent and file a Statement of Delivery.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, who alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy, requested an expedited hearing under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

She argued that without an expedited hearing, her maternity leave would expire before a decision could be rendered, depriving her of time with her infant that could not be adequately compensated by damages.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the circumstances required an urgent resolution, and abridged the time limits for pleadings and disclosure.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against Bruce Power, a nuclear facility.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application, arguing it falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that nuclear facilities are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.