Sheri Price

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking early production of documents and permission to amend her application to increase the monetary compensation sought by $115,000.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production as premature, noting that the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances were identified.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to amend the application to increase the damages claimed, as the respondents identified no resulting prejudice.

The applicant's union, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent consented, but the applicant objected to the union's participation in the liability portion of the proceeding.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age following his termination.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant sought to amend his application to add allegations of racial discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to the significant delay and the fact that the new allegations were completely unrelated to the original filing.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's original claims regarding disability and age discrimination could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and directed the matter to continue in the Tribunal process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age, culminating in the termination of her employment on December 3, 2010.

The application was filed on January 16, 2012, more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued the last incident occurred on March 11, 2011, when she signed a grievance settlement, alleging she was denied time to review it due to her disability.

The Tribunal found the last incident was the December 2010 termination, as the application contained no allegations regarding the March 2011 settlement.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy/maternity leave) against the Consulate General of Barbados and Invest Barbados.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a sovereign nation outside its jurisdiction.

Although the applicant did not file submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, noting the Code does not explicitly exempt consulates and the exact nature of the employer entity was unclear.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, who may then raise jurisdictional objections.

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

After requesting an adjournment of a teleconference hearing to retain counsel, the applicant failed to respond to multiple attempts by the Tribunal to reschedule the hearing.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

As the applicant did not reply, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin and creed after a teammate allegedly used an ethnic slur against him.

The application was filed nearly two years and eight months after the incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he feared harassment and losing his ability to play in the league if he complained earlier.

The Tribunal held that the desire to avoid interpersonal discomfort and continue playing hockey did not constitute a reasonable explanation for failing to pursue human rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.