Sheri D. Price

The applicant passed away after filing an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Counsel for the applicant requested that the application be held in abeyance pending the appointment of an estate trustee.

In the absence of any objection from the respondent, the Tribunal directed that the application be held in abeyance for four months to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed five human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and disability, as well as reprisal, against the college and several of its instructors and staff members.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had any reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of discrimination and most of her reprisal claims were based on speculation and lacked any factual foundation linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed one aspect of the applicant's reprisal claim—alleging that the college's Code of Conduct Administrator reprised against her for claiming her rights under the Code during his investigation—to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The remaining applications and claims were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the corporate respondent breached Minutes of Settlement and ordered pre-judgment interest.

The applicant argued that post-judgment interest should have been ordered instead.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or other factors outweighing the finality of decisions.

The Tribunal confirmed that pre-judgment interest was appropriate because the interest was payable due to a breach of contract, not a failure to comply with a judgment.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and several managers, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents named the WSIB as an additional respondent, alleging that the WSIB orchestrated the human rights claim to avoid retraining the applicant.

The WSIB requested to be removed as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that there were no allegations that the WSIB discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code, and therefore it was not a proper party to the proceeding.

The applicant, a registered nurse, alleged that she was subjected to sexual solicitation by the Director of Care at her former employer, who allegedly expected her to have a romantic relationship with the Assistant Director of Care.

She further alleged that both her former and subsequent employers reprised against her for rejecting these advances by mistreating her and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the alleged comments by the Director of Care were not sexual in nature and there was no evidence linking her mistreatment or termination to the rejection of any sexual advance.

The applicant alleged that the corporate respondent contravened the Minutes of Settlement by failing to mail a settlement cheque to her home address by the agreed-upon date, and instead sending it via courier.

The applicant also alleged a breach of confidentiality.

The Tribunal found that sending the cheque by courier did not comply with the clear and unambiguous requirement to 'mail' the cheque, resulting in a significant delay in the applicant receiving her funds.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to pay pre-judgment interest for the period of delay caused by its breach, but declined to award general damages.

The allegation of a confidentiality breach was dismissed as speculative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applicant's human rights application pending the resolution of his wrongful dismissal action in Small Claims Court.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting the civil action had been adjourned sine die pending the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were distinct, as the civil claim only addressed reasonable notice, while the human rights application alleged discrimination and harassment.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant, a cabinet-maker, suffered a workplace knee injury and was unable to perform modified work offered by the respondent because it required standing and the use of crutches.

The respondent terminated his employment for refusing the modified work.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability contrary to section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2012 alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicant was attempting to revive allegations from a 2009 application that had been dismissed as abandoned, which would constitute issue estoppel or an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply because the 2009 application was not decided on its merits.

However, the Tribunal held that it would be an abuse of process to permit the applicant to revive the 2009 allegations, as it would be manifestly unfair to the respondent.

The Tribunal also ruled on the scope of the application, permitting some allegations that were sufficiently identified in the pleadings while excluding completely new allegations.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the respondent's argument that the permitted allegations were out of time, finding they constituted a continuing contravention and a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to participate in the scheduled hearing by teleconference because he was employed in Israel.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed him to attend in person.

The applicant then requested an adjournment, which was also denied.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his attendance by a specified date, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant emailed the Tribunal stating he would not attend.

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

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 in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant did not respond or comply, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was out of the country and cited financial and work-related reasons for being unable to travel to Canada.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant failed to establish extraordinary circumstances as required by the Practice Direction for late requests.

The Tribunal noted that travel costs and taking time off work are not extraordinary, and the applicant's uncertainty about pursuing the application did not justify an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance regarding some of the same issues, specifically relating to being placed on pregnancy leave instead of sick leave.

The applicant and her union opposed deferral, arguing the human rights application raised broader issues.

The respondent supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped significantly and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by his former employer and two individuals.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance process raising the same facts and issues.

The respondents consented to the deferral on the condition that the individual respondents be removed from the application.

The Tribunal held that deferral is an adjudicative decision based on avoiding inconsistent decisions, not on conditional agreements between parties.

Finding significant overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application and deferred the issue of removing the individual respondents until the application is reactivated.

The applicant, who was residing in Israel, requested to participate in his human rights hearing by telephone.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's credibility would be a significant issue regarding his work performance and alleged termination for taking a disability-related leave.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondent to call a witness despite providing late notice, as the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The respondent hospital sought an interim order requiring the applicant to consent to the disclosure of her personal health information to the respondent's counsel, and to provide the names of coworkers who allegedly wore scents or harassed her, prior to the respondent filing its Response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for medical disclosure, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual rule that a respondent must file its Response before the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for particulars, ordering the applicant to provide the names of the coworkers involved.

Three applicants alleged age discrimination when a hotel refused to permit them to check in because they were under 21 years of age.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed, deferred, or consolidated.

The Tribunal found it fair, just, and expeditious to reactivate one deferred application and consolidate all three applications, as they arose from the same factual circumstances and involved the same legal issues.

A joint mediation was scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and members of its executive discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they withdrew from her grievance arbitration and made derogatory remarks.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, deferred pending the grievance arbitration, or dismissed for disclosing no prima facie case.

They also sought to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding that the arbitration did not deal with the substance of the human rights complaint, there was no ongoing arbitration on the same facts, the personal respondents' conduct was a central issue, and the prima facie case issue had already been decided.

The complainant requested that the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision be corrected to reflect a legal name change that occurred before the decision was issued.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was out of time and the Tribunal lacked authority.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it had the power under section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct errors similar to typographical errors at any time, and alternatively, the power to correct an error made in expressing its manifest intention.

The applicant, who was incarcerated on an immigration hold, requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing dates.

He argued that his incarceration prevented him from accessing necessary documents, summonsing witnesses, and responding to the respondent's requests to dismiss the application.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment, as the applicant was unable to prepare for the hearing for reasons beyond his control.

The adjournment was granted, and a conference call was scheduled to address next steps.