Sheri D. Price

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on place of origin and record of offences.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the alleged conduct (being called a derogatory name) connected to the prohibited grounds.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal found that the application did not allege facts connecting the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground under the Code, and therefore dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, requested that the Tribunal expedite the hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the school board.

He argued that expediting the matter was necessary because he feared discipline or transfer upon his return from sick leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's concerns were speculative and did not constitute truly urgent circumstances that would prevent the fair and just resolution of the merits in the normal course.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Professional Firefighters' Association.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a written hearing for a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of age and sex in respect of accommodation.

The respondent failed to participate in the Tribunal's process despite being served with notice.

The Tribunal found that sufficient notice had been given and granted the request to proceed by way of written hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in a men's hockey league.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing three preliminary issues: the personal respondents' failure to file Responses, the applicant's delay of nearly two years and eight months in filing the application, and the League's representation.

The Tribunal directed the personal respondents to file Responses within 10 days, scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and directed the League to identify its authorized representative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because he was required to submit to a driving test upon reaching 80 years of age.

The respondent Ministry of Transportation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because s. 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that the testing requirement applies despite the Human Rights Code, as permitted by s. 47(2) of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on the threshold jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employer refused to allow her to return to work following a knee injury.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration hearing that raised the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate as the grievance process was ongoing and the applicant had not identified any circumstances to depart from the Tribunal's normal approach.

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

The applicant requested an order to add Trent University as a respondent.

As the personal respondent and Trent University consented, and the applicant sought remedies against the university, the Tribunal granted the request and added Trent University as a respondent pursuant to section 36 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day period required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5, and provided a final deadline of December 23, 2008, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after calling in sick due to vomiting.

The respondent requested deferral pending an Employment Standards Act complaint and argued the application did not establish a prima facie case of disability.

The Tribunal directed a one-day preliminary hearing to determine the threshold issue of whether the applicant's absence constituted a disability under the Code, and whether deferral is appropriate.

The Commission referred a human rights complaint to the Tribunal and requested to proceed by way of a written hearing because the respondent had not participated.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to provide affidavit evidence confirming the respondent was served with notice of the proceeding and the request for a written hearing.

The Commission provided an affidavit stating documents were mailed to a street address but did not provide evidence connecting that address to the respondent.

The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove effective notice and directed the Commission to file additional affidavit evidence or properly serve the respondent within 21 days.

The personal respondent filed a Response to a human rights application more than 50 days after it was due.

He argued the delay was because the application misnamed him and he lacked funds for legal assistance.

The Tribunal noted that lack of funds is not a valid reason for delay, but accepted the late Response because the misnaming may have caused confusion and the proceeding could lead to orders against him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on place of origin and record of offences.

The application was handwritten and largely illegible, making it difficult to ascertain the specific allegations or whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide legible written submissions explaining how the respondents' actions constituted discrimination or harassment with respect to employment, place of origin, and record of offences, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming 'Vincent Fong' as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent's response and the applicant's reply clarified that the correct name is 'Vincent Foo'.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name.

As the personal respondent had not filed a response within the required 35 days, the Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide him with the application and decision, and ordered the personal respondent to file a response by October 31, 2008, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final opportunity to file a response by October 16, 2008, along with an explanation for the delay.