Sheri Price

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of disability by denying him certain benefits and mishandling his claim.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions on whether the application fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations amounted to claims of unfairness, incorrect decisions, and procedural errors, rather than specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with claims that the WSIB misapplied legislation or policies, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, an inmate at the Toronto Jail, alleged that the respondent's health staff discriminated against him based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and disability by refusing to prescribe him certain medications (including Wellbutrin) and a special diet.

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

The Tribunal first ruled that documents from the applicant's complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario were statutorily privileged under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act and inadmissible.

The Tribunal then dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that there were no facts alleged linking the medical decisions or alleged mistreatment to the applicant's race, creed, or other grounds, and that clinical decisions based on a patient's disability do not constitute discrimination absent arbitrariness.

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

The TTC requested early dismissal of the application due to delay, arguing the last alleged incident was merely a continuing consequence of earlier WSIB decisions.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the application in its entirety, finding that the TTC's alleged requirement for the applicant to return to work on September 5, 2012, could independently constitute an act of discrimination and was within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application against the WSIB at this preliminary stage.

The parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former employer reprised against him for requesting religious accommodation when it terminated his employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an additional week's pay.

The applicant argued the release did not bar future claims or, alternatively, that he signed it under duress fearing negative impacts on his Record of Employment.

The Tribunal found the release clearly barred the application and that the applicant failed to establish duress, as the respondent applied no illegitimate pressure.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, race, and ethnic origin.

The allegations stemmed from his supervisor's emails regarding his attendance, a written warning for his conduct during a meeting, and the employer's handling of his grievance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the 2012 allegations were timely as part of a series of incidents, the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not establish that he was disadvantaged or that the employer's actions were linked to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB discriminated against him based on disability when it denied him Loss of Earnings benefits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of adjudicative immunity and whether WSIB decisions constitute 'services' under the Code.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the WSIB is immune or that its decisions are not services.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application identifies specific acts of discrimination rather than merely alleging the WSIB's decision was incorrect.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging infringement of her rights.

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant's trade union filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status regarding the accommodation of pregnant firefighters.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed late and sought to introduce new allegations.

The Tribunal granted intervenor status, finding the union had a significant interest as the exclusive bargaining agent and that the delay was due to counsel's inadvertence.

However, the Tribunal deferred ruling on whether the union could introduce new factual allegations, directing the union to provide written submissions on the issue.

The intervenor requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates in the event that the Application is not resolved through mediation-adjudication on the first day of the hearing.

The stated reason was to avoid unnecessary costs and provide the best opportunity to settle.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, requests made outside the ordinary time limit require extraordinary circumstances.

The desire to engage in settlement discussions is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of her human rights Application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by her trade union, which raised the same issues and facts.

The respondents consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure, pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and missed key elements regarding alleged racial discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and failed to identify any compelling or extraordinary circumstances, or new evidence, that would justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant's trade union, Unifor, requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted in accordance with its established practice.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing the employment falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction as a telecommunications undertaking.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the jurisdictional issue to allow the intervenor and the applicant an opportunity to provide written submissions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights Application by increasing the monetary compensation sought from $5,000 to $24,500 and adding certain non-monetary remedies.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondent given the hearing was months away, without making any determination on the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by his employer.

The applicant's trade union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its established practice of allowing a trade union to intervene in applications brought by its bargaining unit members.

The Tribunal also directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to address the applicant's request to reactivate the application following a grievance arbitration, and the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The union decided not to refer the grievances to arbitration, concluding the other proceeding.

As the respondent and intervenor did not respond to the request, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being let go from his position as a court usher.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was scheduled for arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that the grievance arbitration would deal with the same factual and legal issues and that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO).

The ESO had previously denied the applicant's claim for termination pay, finding him guilty of wilful misconduct for smoking marijuana while driving a company vehicle.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the ESO's decision focused solely on the misconduct and did not address the human rights issues, such as whether the applicant had a disability, whether the disability contributed to the misconduct, or whether the employer failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction that granted the applicant a two-week extension to file written submissions on preliminary objections.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that a decision to extend time limits is an exercise of discretionary power and not a final decision, and therefore not open to reconsideration under Rule 26.1.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it were open to reconsideration, the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence regarding statutory limitation periods.

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

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Halton Regional Police Association, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its established practice that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

In an age discrimination application regarding a hiring decision, the Tribunal held a conference call to determine whether the successful candidate (the incumbent) was entitled to notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the incumbent was not significantly or directly affected because the applicant was not seeking a remedy that would displace the incumbent from his job.

Furthermore, section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not require notice to a non-party.

The Tribunal ruled that there was no obligation to give the incumbent notice.