Sheri Price

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for document production and the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce documents relating to a job competition, finding them relevant to the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that if the respondent destroyed the interview notes, the parties should be prepared to make submissions on whether an adverse inference should be drawn.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing and its request to strike the applicant's remedial request for lost wages.

The respondent employer filed a request to dismiss the human rights application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the applicant's last day of work.

The applicant contended that his employment was terminated during a telephone call three days later, which fell within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the application was timely because the applicant alleged a discriminatory incident occurred within the one-year period preceding the filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding a job transfer and the denial of a mentorship opportunity.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already decided by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found the GSB had appropriately dealt with the transfer allegation and dismissed that part of the application.

The Tribunal also dismissed the mentorship allegation, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's age.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer reprised against her for filing two previous grievances alleging racial discrimination.

The alleged reprisal consisted of assigning her to a cramped, unready office with old furniture upon her relocation to a new detention centre.

Following the applicant's case, the respondent requested the application be dismissed under Rule 19A for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the applicant's working conditions to her previous grievances and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against him based on ethnic origin, creed, sex, and disability during his arrest.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was vague and failed to establish any link between the alleged mistreatment and the prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because the applicant failed to provide witness statements as directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while the applicant failed to comply with the disclosure rules, he would generally be permitted to testify to facts already contained in his pleadings but would not be permitted to give evidence on matters not covered by the pleadings or call witnesses for whom no statement was provided.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing based on the pleadings.

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.