Sheri D. Price

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and two individuals.

The applicant's union, CUPE Local 1883, filed a request to intervene.

A summary hearing was scheduled but the Tribunal failed to provide notice to the union.

On consent of the parties, the summary hearing was adjourned to allow notice to be given to the union.

The Tribunal also granted the union's unopposed request to intervene, consistent with its practice of granting intervention status to bargaining agents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice to inquire about the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Amherstburg Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) alleging inappropriate conduct and comments regarding her mental disabilities.

The OPP requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing the allegations did not involve its members.

The applicant conceded she mistakenly believed an involved officer belonged to the OPP.

The Tribunal found no allegations that could lead to a finding against the OPP and ordered the OPP removed as a party to the proceeding.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants had commenced a civil proceeding seeking a remedy for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the civil action alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, but did not allege Code infringements or seek a remedy for them.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the applications should be deferred pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not respond to the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

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

The applicant passed away during the course of the proceedings.

The Tribunal previously held the application in abeyance to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee.

Counsel for the applicant requested a further three-month extension because the applicant's will did not appoint an estate trustee and the issue remained unresolved.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request and extended the abeyance until January 5, 2014.

The respondents requested an interim order to strike allegations predating April 26, 2012, and to remove the personal respondent as a party.

The Tribunal deferred the request to strike the allegations, finding it to be an evidentiary matter for the hearing adjudicator since the applicant was only relying on them as factual background.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondent, finding her alleged conduct was a central issue and, as the directing mind and sole shareholder of the corporate respondent, her inclusion would not unnecessarily complicate the proceedings.

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 lists prior to the hearing.

Neither party complied.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to file the required materials by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The corporate and personal respondents requested an order removing the personal respondents (the Executive Director and Manager of Support Services) from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents, there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to remedy any infringement, and there was no compelling juridical reason to maintain the personal respondents as parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights violations by the respondent.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a female street performer, alleged that the respondent city's by-law prohibiting voice amplification discriminated against her on the basis of sex, claiming women are physiologically less able to project their voices than men.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to determine if a by-law has a discriminatory effect and that the applicant had sufficiently alleged discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed it to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide her expert evidence regarding voice projection in advance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent employer reprised against her by denying her a voluntary exit opportunity.

The applicant conceded that these allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board and should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend her application to allege that the respondent's failure to investigate her reprisal allegations under its internal policy constituted a further reprisal.

The Tribunal found that this new claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence that the failure to investigate was motivated by an intention to punish the applicant for claiming her rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal discriminated against her based on family status and disability by failing to offer to pay for child care so she could attend her appeal hearing in person.

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

The Tribunal found that the application was barred by the common law doctrine of judicial immunity, as the respondent tribunal's decision to permit the applicant to participate by teleconference was a procedural ruling made in the course of exercising its quasi-judicial functions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on the same issue, which proceeded to arbitration where the respondent conceded liability for a specific period.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the issues raised in the application were substantially the same as those in the grievances, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning him of the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no new facts, evidence, or exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued she did not attend because her representative had requested an adjournment due to a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that no such adjournment request was received and that, even if it had been, it was unreasonable for the applicant to assume the hearing was adjourned without confirmation from the Tribunal.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged that the respondent union reprised against him contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code after he reported witnessing a coworker assault a Black inmate.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's truthful reporting of the incident did not constitute a refusal to infringe the inmate's Code rights, especially since his report did not allege discrimination.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned for failing to provide particulars.

The reconsideration request was filed by the applicant's union president.

The Tribunal found the request valid and granted reconsideration, noting that the applicant's former union representative had communicated an intent to pursue the application, meaning it was not abandoned.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, attributing the failure to comply with the order for particulars to the former representative's error rather than the applicant's continuous failure.

The applicant was ordered to provide the required particulars within 21 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and reprisal by his former employer.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events from 2007 to 2009 and a comment in March 2011 were untimely and not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving that the remaining alleged mistreatment, including warnings, failure to promote, suspension, and termination, was linked to his race or constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, a massage therapist, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

After disclosing her pregnancy, the applicant was subjected to derogatory comments about her appearance, had her hours and walk-in clients significantly reduced, and was ultimately terminated.

The respondent did not participate in the proceeding and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions constituted discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with $3,962.50 for lost wages and tips, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training for management.