Sheri D. Price

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age when it decided not to hire him for an Inside Sales Consultant position.

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

The applicant argued he was told he was overqualified and would likely leave after a few months, but acknowledged he could not prove age was a factor.

The Tribunal found no connection between the respondent's perception of overqualification and the applicant's age, concluding the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissing it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an ongoing WSIB appeal dealt with the same substance, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, as the WSIB appeal was still pending and had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings due to the significant overlap in facts and issues.

The complainant requested an order to correct the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision to 'DOT Benefits Corp.' and to add '1263699 Ontario Limited' as a jointly and severally liable party.

The Tribunal granted the request to correct the typographical error in the corporate respondent's name pursuant to section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the new corporate entity and impose joint and several liability, noting that such a substantive change may not fall within its power to correct typographical errors, and suggested the complainant pursue enforcement remedies through the courts.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal after her employment was terminated.

She claimed the school board failed to accommodate her disabilities (anxiety, depression, leukemia) by requiring her to undergo a Teacher Performance Appraisal and refusing to assign her to a teacher-librarian role.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of discrimination regarding the appraisal or the teaching assignment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if a duty to accommodate arose, the applicant failed to cooperate in the accommodation process by repeatedly refusing to provide requested medical information outlining her restrictions.

The termination of her employment was found to be a legitimate response to her ongoing refusal to provide medical documentation, not a reprisal.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the applicant's WSIB appeal, or dismiss it under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the WSIB proceeding appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because the WSIB appeal had already been decided.

The Tribunal also denied the request to dismiss, finding that the WSIB proceeding dealt only with entitlement to workplace accident benefits, not the applicant's allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The employer terminated him based on WSIB surveillance video that allegedly showed him misrepresenting his workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's related WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the WSIA appeal significantly overlapped, and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to correct the respondent's name to match land registry documents, months after the Tribunal had issued a final decision.

The Tribunal found it was functus officio and could not amend the name via such a request, but decided to treat the request as a Request for Reconsideration.

The Tribunal directed the other parties to respond and convened a half-day in-person hearing to determine if the time limit for reconsideration should be extended and whether the respondent's name should be amended.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability requested an order for the production of the applicant's medical and disability files prior to filing their Response.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her Employee Health and Rehabilitation Unit file, as it was an internal employer record necessary for the respondents to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The request for the Manulife long-term disability file was denied as unnecessary at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the respondents an extension of time to file their Response and declined to remove the personal respondents as parties at this early stage of the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being falsely accused of misconduct and terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege facts connecting the mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness not covered by the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

Due to uncertainty over whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction, the applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the CHRC's jurisdictional determination.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions on the jurisdictional issue.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under ss. 34(11) and 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that prior criminal proceedings against the applicant for criminal harassment dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal dismissed these requests, noting that criminal proceedings do not determine Code infringements.

The respondents' request to dismiss for no prima facie case and abuse of process was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant requested a postponement until his peace bond prohibiting contact with one of the respondents expired.

The Tribunal granted a short delay, directing that mediation be scheduled after the peace bond's expiration.

The applicant alleged her employment with the Consulate General of Barbados and Invest Barbados was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed, arguing they were immune from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the State Immunity Act.

The Tribunal found that the Act applies to statutory tribunals and that the respondents qualify as a foreign state and an agency of a foreign state.

The Tribunal further held that the commercial activity exception did not apply, as the operation and management of a consulate are sovereign acts.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The respondents supported deferral, noting the Grievance Settlement Board's authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when he was denied sick pay during a lawful strike.

The applicant had agreed to delay his sick leave to assist the respondent, but the strike commenced on the day his leave began.

The Tribunal held that the denial of sick pay was due to the collective agreement not being in effect during the strike, not the applicant's disability.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for failing to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant, a store manager, was seriously injured in a car accident and required a medical leave of absence.

The respondent terminated her employment after 14 days, mistakenly believing that the Employment Standards Act permitted termination once the 10 days of unpaid emergency leave were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.

The respondent was ordered to pay $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $1,170 for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (gender identity) in respect of services.

The applicant consented to the intervention and the respondent did not oppose it.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code and directed the Commission to file written submissions regarding the interpretation and application of section 14 of the Code.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was never employed by the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant alleged discrimination in respect of employment when the respondent purchased the dental practice where she previously worked and decided not to employ her due to her maternity leave.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response to the Application within ten days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, a welder, suffered a back injury and returned to modified work.

After complaining of ongoing back pain that affected his productivity, the respondent employer sent him home, claiming it needed to assess the suitability of his work.

The employer failed to take reasonable steps to conduct this assessment or explore other accommodations, leaving the applicant out of work indefinitely.

The Tribunal found that the employer breached its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to initiate the accommodation process, pay $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and compensate the applicant for lost wages.

The applicant, a male-to-female transgendered person, requested an order to use the pseudonym 'XY' and a partial publication ban to protect her identity during Tribunal proceedings.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that anonymization and a limited publication ban were necessary to protect the applicant's privacy, prevent potential social stigma, and ensure the accessibility and fairness of the human rights system.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of age, sex, and reprisal.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether two named personal respondents were proper parties, given the lack of allegations linking their actions to a prohibited ground.

The applicant submitted that the respondents ignored her right to peace and quiet because she is an 'old woman'.

The Tribunal held that a bald assertion of discrimination, without supporting factual allegations, is insufficient to maintain an application against a named respondent.

The two personal respondents were removed as parties.