Sheri Price

The applicant alleged discrimination based on marital status and association with a person of a certain race/place of origin in relation to obtaining mortgage financing for a new home purchase.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the home builder, the warranty corporation, and the mortgage broker, as well as the claim regarding association with a lawyer of East Indian origin.

However, the Tribunal allowed the marital status discrimination claim against the mortgage lender to proceed, finding it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates for medical reasons, supported by a doctor's note indicating her condition interfered with day-to-day matters.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and that the applicant had the condition when she filed the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's medical condition constituted an exceptional circumstance under the Practice Direction on Scheduling, and that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced.

The respondent requested that the second day of the scheduled hearing be adjourned early to accommodate its counsel's teaching schedule.

The applicant did not respond to the request or the Tribunal's subsequent inquiry.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the second day of the hearing to end at 1:00 p.m. and to commence an hour early at 9:00 a.m. to make up for lost time.

The respondents requested a change of venue for the hearing from Toronto to Waterloo, arguing that bringing their witnesses to Toronto would significantly disrupt their small manufacturing business.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that potential business disruption does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the Tribunal's standard practice of holding hearings in its designated regional centres, given the need to effectively manage public resources.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application after it was deferred pending the outcome of union grievances.

The respondents opposed reactivation on the basis of delay and sought dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled by a Memorandum of Settlement between the university and the union.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding the delay was minor and the applicant substantially complied with the rules.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, holding that the applicant was not a party to the settlement, did not voluntarily agree to its terms, and could not be bound by it simply because a payment was deposited into his bank account.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness summaries by August 21, 2015.

The applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction extending the deadline to September 25, 2015, and warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by conference call to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the hearing.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability and age, claiming the respondent had an institutional agenda to eliminate older and disabled employees.

The applicant requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry under s. 44(1) of the Human Rights Code to obtain internal communications regarding this alleged agenda.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a Tribunal-appointed inquiry is an extraordinary measure and that the applicant could seek the documents through the Tribunal's usual production process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination by Hockey Canada regarding a flat-rate insurance fee for minor hockey players.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal found no new facts, no conflict with jurisprudence or procedure, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider its interim rulings denying requests to add Toronto Paramedic Services as a party and for document production.

The applicant also requested an adjournment and that a new adjudicator be assigned to the case.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding no basis to reconsider an interim decision under the Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment and the request for recusal, finding that the interim rulings did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against the Toronto Police Services Board brought interim requests to add Toronto Paramedic Services as a respondent, to compel the production of certain police officers' notes, and to be issued 10 summonses to witness.

The Tribunal denied the request to add a party due to its lateness and lack of arguable merit.

The request for document production was denied as the notes were not arguably relevant to the discrimination allegations.

The request for summonses was deferred to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the claims had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the reprisal claim was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the creed-based discrimination and reprisal claims to proceed, finding they required an evidentiary record and that the ESA proceeding did not address the substance of the Code reprisal claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and age, 21 months after his employment was terminated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed beyond the one-year time limit in s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2), as the applicant's severe depression and anxiety, which included a suicide attempt and hospitalization, significantly impaired his ability to file the application earlier.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to establish that it would suffer substantial prejudice from the delay.

The application was permitted to proceed, and the applicant was granted anonymization due to the highly sensitive medical information involved.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's time limits for providing arguably relevant documents and witness statements.

The adjudicator denied the request, noting that under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the consequence of failing to produce documents and witness information is that limits may be placed on the evidence the defaulting party is permitted to present at the hearing, not dismissal of the application.

The hearing was ordered to continue as scheduled.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove a personal respondent and to strike background allegations from the human rights application.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal declined to strike the background allegations regarding the cause of the applicant's disability, finding they were not alleged Code infringements subject to dismissal for delay under s. 34(1), and held that their relevance and admissibility should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed an application under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code against the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided proper notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a tenant in a social housing building, alleged that the respondent landlord and property manager discriminated against him on the basis of perceived mental disability.

The applicant claimed discrimination occurred when the property manager told the City Ombudsman that the applicant had possible mental health issues, and when the respondents failed to inform complaining fellow tenants that the applicant did not have a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that merely perceiving someone to have a disability is not disadvantageous treatment and therefore not discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that fellow tenants complained about the applicant because they perceived him to have a mental disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (PTSD) by his employer, the WSIB, and his union.

The employer had terminated the applicant for unsubstantiated absences, which was the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, finding a significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and a risk of inconsistent decisions if the proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and two individual respondents.

The respondents brought preliminary requests to dismiss part of the application under s. 45.1 of the Code based on a prior WSIB decision, to remove the personal respondents, and to convene a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the s. 45.1 request because the WSIB decision did not address all of the applicant's disability-related restrictions and was under appeal.

The Tribunal removed the Human Resources manager as a personal respondent but retained the Occupational Health Nurse whose personal conduct was a central issue.

The requests for early document production and a summary hearing were denied.

The respondent physician requested that the Tribunal defer the hearing of the human rights application on its merits pending the outcome of his application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that deferral would not serve the purpose of avoiding inconsistent decisions and would inappropriately fragment and delay the administrative proceedings.