Sheri D. Price

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions by the deadline and failed to respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to contact the Tribunal regarding his intentions with respect to the application, as directed in a previous Case Assessment Direction.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for failing to raise an issue within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his evidence that the respondent discriminated against him regarding his WSIB benefits and handled his claim improperly.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely disagreeing with the previous decision and attempting to reargue his case, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding the lack of an oral hearing and alleged Charter violations.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a television journalist, alleged that the respondents reprised against him by denying him media accreditation to cover a political party's annual general meeting.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prior complaints to the respondents were about freedom of the press and democratic principles, not about claiming or enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

As the applicant could not establish that he had claimed or enforced Code rights, the reprisal application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that Hockey Canada discriminated against him on the basis of age by charging a flat-rate insurance fee for minor hockey players, arguing that younger players subsidize older players who have a higher risk of injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence would not establish that the flat-rate fee disadvantaged him because of his age, nor could he identify when younger players stop subsidizing older players.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reopen his file after his reprisal claim was dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code based on an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The applicant noted that the ESO decision was under appeal to the OLRB.

The Tribunal decided to reconsider its previous interim decision on its own initiative under Rule 26.9, noting that the dismissal was made without affording the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

A teleconference hearing was ordered to rehear the respondents' s. 45.1 request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing because he had recently started a new job and could not afford to miss work.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and his failure to confirm attendance.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, noting that the rules provide for evidentiary limits rather than dismissal for such failures.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's alternative request for an adjournment, directing the hearing to proceed as scheduled, and warned the applicant that further abusive communications could result in dismissal for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent landlords failed to accommodate her disability-related need for mould-free housing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing that a prior settlement at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the LTB settlement did not resolve the human rights claim, as the applicant had explicitly refused to dismiss it during those negotiations.

The request to dismiss was denied, and the application was allowed to continue, subject to the applicant confirming her intention to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability for the respondent's failure to provide ASL interpretation at a conference.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Amend the Application to include a request for monetary compensation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it raised new allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the applicant was merely seeking compensation for the discrimination alleged in the original application, without adding new factual allegations.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin by requiring graduates of non-accredited dental programs to undergo a more onerous certification process than graduates of accredited programs.

He also alleged that the requirement to write certification examinations in English disadvantaged him.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the differential treatment was based on the accreditation status of the educational institution, not place of origin, and that the applicant failed to establish that the English language requirement disadvantaged him.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights Application pending the resolution of the applicant's wrongful dismissal action in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the civil claim (reasonable notice) and the human rights Application (sexual discrimination and harassment) were distinct.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not warranted as there was no real risk of inconsistent findings, and the human rights allegations would not be addressed in the civil proceeding.

The request to defer was denied.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of his WSIB appeal regarding a workplace injury.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues did not overlap.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned the cause of the injury, whereas the human rights application concerned alleged discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no real risk of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of three human rights applications alleging family status discrimination and reprisal, pending the completion of a related small claims court action.

The applicants opposed the deferral, noting the civil action was not at an advanced stage and did not allege Code infringements.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no real risk of inconsistent decisions on factual or legal issues, and concluded that deferral would be inconsistent with the mandate to ensure fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis of delay, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

Although the applicant was granted an extension of time to file submissions, the extended deadline passed without any response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal removed the corporate owners as personal respondents, finding the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions.

The Tribunal deferred a request to allow certain witnesses to testify by telephone until the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing to deal with liability before remedy, and ordered the respondents to produce specific documents related to the investigation of the applicant's complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically regarding the denial of sick pay benefits.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it did not raise an issue within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a determination of ineligibility for disability benefits is not, in and of itself, an act of discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide documents, a witness list, and witness statements by specified deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal correct the name of the respondent in a previous decision from its registered business name, 'Hotlomi Spa', to include its corporation name, '2252419 Ontario Inc.', to allow for enforcement of the Tribunal's order through the courts.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to s. 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding that the omission of the corporation name was a technical deficiency similar to a typographical error, and that correcting it reflected the Tribunal's manifest intention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his former employer discriminated against him by providing a negative employment reference.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling a prior grievance and human rights application, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because an arbitrator remained seized of the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a release cannot contractually bar future human rights claims based on subsequent events, and that parties cannot contract out of the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction to determine contraventions of settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after his employment was terminated.

He brought a request for an order during proceedings to add a co-worker as a personal respondent, alleging the co-worker made discriminatory comments during the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the allegations could lead to a finding of a Code infringement and there was no prejudice to the proposed respondent.