Alan Whyte

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in employment following a workplace injury that resulted in a broken hip.

She claimed the respondent failed to accommodate her need for reduced hours, denied her a promotion, changed her compensation structure, and harassed her by monitoring her work activities.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had made genuine and ongoing efforts to accommodate the applicant, including offering a graduated return to work program and implementing ergonomic recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide necessary medical documentation to support her need for reduced hours and that the respondent's actions were reasonable and non-discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original decision found that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The respondent union requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The union argued the application was moot, settled by a prior agreement between the applicant and his employer, and disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union was not a party to the settlement with the employer and provided no consideration for the release.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations went beyond a simple failure to represent and established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the union to file its position on the applicant's requested remedies.

The applicant, a production worker, suffered an ankle injury and was placed on modified duties.

After his recovery period extended beyond the expected timeframe, the respondent conducted video surveillance which showed a discrepancy between his physical abilities at work and outside of work.

The respondent suspended and later terminated the applicant for misrepresenting his medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application, finding that the respondent had accommodated the applicant and that the termination was based on the misrepresentation, not the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race and citizenship by the respondent, a dairy farm owner.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as she had received legal advice and made a strategic decision to hold onto the evidence of discrimination rather than pursuing it promptly.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The responding party's driver's licence was downgraded from class 'B' to 'G' due to a heart condition, preventing him from working as a school bus driver.

He appealed the decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which upheld the downgrade and addressed his human rights arguments.

The responding party subsequently filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The moving party brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the LAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application and dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for failing to allege facts constituting a reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 for granting a reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and creed, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The applicant submitted that he was waiting for the result of a union grievance.

The Tribunal ordered the application and the applicant's submissions to be served on the respondent and the union, and directed them to file submissions on the delay issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The corporate respondent settled, leaving only the personal respondent.

The personal respondent requested that the Tribunal determine the issue of the applicant's delay in filing the application as a preliminary matter.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the delay issue before making a determination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and reprisal following his termination by the respondent.

The Tribunal noted that the narrative provided did not clearly engage either ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability following her termination.

The respondent argued that a termination letter signed by the applicant constituted a full and final release barring the application.

The Tribunal found that the letter did not contain any language releasing the applicant's claims under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to respond to the request for early dismissal or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to file any response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Customer Service Representative, alleged that her branch manager sexually harassed her through leering, inappropriate physical contact, and derogatory comments, creating a poisoned work environment.

She also alleged that the employer failed to reasonably investigate her complaints and terminated her employment as a reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the manager engaged in sexual harassment and created a poisoned work environment, and that the employer failed to properly investigate the complaints.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim, finding the termination was based on performance issues.

The Tribunal awarded $30,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to amend its discrimination/harassment policy and conduct human rights training for managerial personnel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex (pregnancy), as well as reprisal, arising from an accommodation request.

The respondent hospital sought to defer the application because the applicant had filed a concurrent grievance.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the legal issues and remedies in the grievance were narrower, and noting unusual circumstances regarding the applicant's status with the union that raised concerns about expeditious processing.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had a sufficient interest in potential remedies affecting the bargaining unit.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after receiving the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that upheld the applicant's human rights complaint and awarded damages.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal's calculation of special damages for wage loss was flawed, asserting the applicant worked fewer hours per week than determined, and provided documents to support this claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the information submitted by the respondents would have been available at the time of the hearing but was not entered into evidence.

The respondents failed to establish new facts or evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, or any other criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing events from June to August 2009.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application, relying on a full and final release signed by the applicant on June 18, 2009.

The applicant argued the application relies on events postdating the release.

The Tribunal determined it could not decide the request without further submissions and directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of receipt of public assistance against her landlord and another tenant.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the connection between the alleged ground of discrimination and the respondents' conduct.

The applicant's submissions detailed problems with her landlord but failed to establish a nexus to her receipt of public assistance.

Finding no engagement of a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his 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.