Sheri D. Price

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.

The applicant requested to participate in the upcoming hearing of his human rights application by telephone because he was employed overseas as a university professor.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the credibility of the applicant and other witnesses was a significant issue in the case.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's in-person attendance was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the Tribunal to fairly assess credibility.

The applicant, a nurse on disability leave, alleged that the respondent hospital discriminated against her on the basis of mental disability by attempting to collect an overpayment of wages while she was off work.

She also alleged reprisal after the respondent sent her debt to a collection agency.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to forego collecting wages paid in error, and the applicant failed to establish that she had claimed rights under the Code or that the collection action was retaliatory.

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 subsequent Case Assessment Directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The reconsideration request was filed beyond the 30-day time limit without any explanation for the delay, and was therefore untimely.

Furthermore, the applicant's submission that he had been diagnosed with ADHD did not constitute new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor did it explain his failure to file a timely application.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing to gather documents and prepare, while the respondent requested the application be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to provide detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances justified the delay, as the applicant had ample time to prepare.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request to dismiss the application, concluding that the applicant's recent communications demonstrated an intent to pursue the matter, though the respondent could still object to undisclosed evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

A hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating he wished to withdraw his application, and he subsequently failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal noted that an application cannot be unilaterally withdrawn at that stage without permission, and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent hospital required his wife to work night shifts upon returning from disability leave.

The applicant also named the hospital's LTD insurer (Manulife) and a disability management company (Acclaim) as respondents.

Manulife and Acclaim requested to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that neither Manulife nor Acclaim had the power to control the claimant's terms of employment or accommodate her disability-related needs in the workplace.

The Tribunal also declined to bifurcate the hearing on liability and remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and his union.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied, but he still failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and dismissed the application against the union as abandoned.

In an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the requirement to work night shifts, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal ordered that the claimant's family doctor must be made available for cross-examination if her medical notes are to be admitted for the truth of their contents.

The Tribunal permitted the doctor to testify by telephone, finding no significant prejudice to the respondents.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce requested medical and mitigation documents, as they met the threshold of arguable relevance.

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 scheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin with respect to his employment termination.

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

The applicant argued he was unjustly accused of sexual harassment and terminated, while a Caucasian co-worker was not.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between his termination and Code-protected grounds, allowing the application to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

A previous interim decision adjourned the hearing because a Superior Court order prevented the respondent from communicating with or being in the same room as the applicant, effectively preventing his participation.

The applicant was directed to seek a variance of the order within 90 days to allow the hearing to proceed, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and receipt of public assistance against numerous respondents, including federal agencies, municipal officials, hospitals, and shelters.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to Code grounds and named federally regulated entities.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no factual basis connecting the alleged mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination, and confirming that several respondents fell outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her need for modified work cycles due to stress.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding a claim for psychotraumatic disability.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the issues before the WSIB (the cause of the stress) did not sufficiently overlap with the human rights issue of whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability-related needs in the workplace.

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

The respondent supported the request.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the factual and legal issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination while in custody at a provincial correctional facility.

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and having access to a telephone at the facility.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged age discrimination when his commercial driver's licence was renewed for only one year shortly before his 64th birthday.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the Highway Traffic Act regulations regarding age-based testing apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requesting further information from the parties to determine whether the specific requirements imposed on the applicant were mandated by the regulation, before ruling on its jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the confidentiality provision of their human rights settlement by disclosing its terms to her former husband.

The applicant argued that her former husband could only have learned about the settlement and its monetary compensation from the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent disclosed the terms of the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the confidentiality provision only prohibited disclosing the terms of the settlement, not the fact that a settlement occurred, and the former husband's allegation of monetary compensation could have been an assumption rather than based on disclosed information.