Sheri D. Price

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately 17 months after the last incident, beyond the one-year time limit in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to attempts to resolve the issues through other avenues, including the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable explanation and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately 17 months after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

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

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing other avenues to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable explanation and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the denial of benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending the resolution of the applicant's ongoing WSIA appeal.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues, noting that the jurisdictional objection would be addressed if the application is brought back on.

The applicant alleged age discrimination when the respondent renewed his commercial driver's licence for only one year, up to his 65th birthday, instead of the usual five years.

The respondent argued that the Highway Traffic Act regulations require drivers aged 65 and over to complete annual testing, and that these requirements apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because section 47(2) of the Code and section 19 of Regulation 340/94 explicitly state that the licensing requirements apply despite the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

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

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondents requested particulars, and the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide them.

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

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability for the respondent's refusal to cover the cost of medical marijuana, pending the resolution of the applicant's appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The SBT appeal concerned entitlement to community startup and maintenance benefits for moving and storage expenses.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were distinct and that deferral was not appropriate, despite an overlap in the remedies sought.

The application was ordered to continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, a corporation, and its owner/operator.

The personal respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy, triggering a statutory stay of proceedings under s. 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal held that while the Application against the personal respondent was stayed because it included a claim for monetary relief, the stay did not extend to the corporate respondent.

The Application was permitted to proceed against the corporate respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application by failing to provide staff training on 'Transgendered Health Competency' as agreed.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed developed and delivered the training in consultation with the specified clinic, and that the settlement did not require the training to be delivered by an external organization or to be of a specific duration.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex and family status when the respondent transferred her to the night shift as an accommodation for her pregnancy-related lifting restrictions.

The Tribunal previously deferred the Application pending a union grievance on the same issues.

The union subsequently withdrew the grievance without the applicant's agreement.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

Finding that the grievance was withdrawn without the applicant's consent and no settlement was reached, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the Application had not been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and allowed the Application to continue.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because his paralegal's licence was suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada, leaving him unrepresented and non-compliant with pre-hearing disclosure rules.

The respondents and intervenor consented to the request.

The Tribunal found these to be extraordinary circumstances, granted the adjournment, and set new deadlines for the applicant's pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, and failing to respond to the respondents' Request for an Order during Proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing, claiming he did not receive notice until shortly before the hearing dates due to a change in his contact information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondent's failure to update his contact information with the Tribunal for over a year did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent to file witness statements and documentary evidence late, subject to the applicant's right to object at the hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, claiming he was laid off after disclosing his age and lack of retirement plans.

The respondent claimed the layoff was due to a shortage of work.

The applicant requested an interim order for the production of a list of maintenance employees hired after his layoff, their contact information, and his personnel file.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the respondent's defence of a work shortage.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because a restaurant lacked an automatic door opener.

The application named both the franchisor and the franchisee as respondents.

The franchisor brought a preliminary request to be removed as a respondent, arguing it was a separate entity from the franchisee and had no involvement in the restaurant's operations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it inappropriate to remove the franchisor at a preliminary stage without a factual basis regarding the legal relationship and the franchisor's control over the installation of automatic door openers.

The applicant, a youth services officer, filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and creed.

His exclusive bargaining agent, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union (OPSEU), filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents filed a response, and given OPSEU's interest in the potential workplace accommodation remedies that could affect other bargaining unit members, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction within the specified timeframe.

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to remove the individual respondents (the President and kitchen manager) and add the corporate employer, Zoe's Bakery Café Ltd., as a respondent.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, finding that the alleged actions occurred in the course of employment, making the corporation vicariously liable under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no compelling reason to maintain the personal respondents, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the corporation and removing the individuals.

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

He subsequently requested to add his former supervisor as a personal respondent to prevent the corporate respondent from avoiding liability by claiming the supervisor acted in a personal capacity.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the corporate respondent conceded it would be vicariously liable under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code for any discriminatory conduct by the supervisor in the course of her employment.

As there was no compelling reason to add the supervisor personally, the request was dismissed.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to participate by teleconference because he was working overseas.

The Tribunal denied the request, directed the applicant to attend in person, and ordered him to confirm his attendance in writing by a specified deadline.

When the applicant failed to confirm his attendance or communicate further with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.