Alan Whyte

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against CIBC Mortgages Inc. and Nia Garron pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to reactivate and expedite his deferred human rights application, which alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after he was denied leave to care for his child.

The application had been deferred pending an ongoing grievance process.

The applicant argued reactivation was warranted because the respondent failed to respond at step three of the grievance procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the failure to respond did not alter the fundamental reasons for deferring the application pending the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and other areas on multiple grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed procedural issues including the timeliness of certain allegations and the deferral of matters subject to grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific dates and particulars for several allegations, including the names of clients involved, to allow the respondent to properly respond.

The Tribunal also deferred portions of the application that overlapped with pending grievances, on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in housing, seeking to keep a dog for her mental health despite a condominium arbitration award requiring its removal.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request because the respondent undertook not to enforce the arbitration award pending the disposition of the human rights proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination after her employment was terminated one month prior to her return from pregnancy leave.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act application based on the same facts.

With the applicant's consent, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the final determination of the parallel employment standards proceedings.

The applicant, who self-identifies as a gender variant person, filed an application alleging sex discrimination because the respondent employer refused to alter employment records that record information in a gender binary fashion.

The applicant requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, noting the union's support and the respondent's failure to make submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and union membership on the basis of disability and age, claiming the union appointed people to internal positions in a discriminatory manner.

The respondent union filed a Request for Order during Proceedings challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the application was out of time, and asserting the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing by conference call to receive submissions on these preliminary issues, including the potential applicability of section 6 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being barred from participating in university athletics.

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

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the application.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The respondent employer filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to refer the application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing it is a federally-regulated entity.

The applicant confirmed she was proceeding with a federal complaint and suggested deferral.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent Ministry sought early dismissal, arguing the application was barred by a comprehensive release signed by the applicant and was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to participate in a telephone conference call hearing to provide oral submissions on the issues of the release and delay, including the factors of good faith and substantial prejudice.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the issues were fully resolved through a union grievance settlement.

The applicant contended that the grievance settlement did not resolve all issues and that he was excluded from discussions.

The Tribunal found that further information and submissions were required and directed the scheduling of a teleconference to hear arguments on the request for dismissal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application against Ryerson University and other respondents.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, place of origin, citizenship, family status, association, and reprisal.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found insufficient information to connect the proposed respondent to the factual situation giving rise to the application.

The request to add the respondent was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer and union.

The employer filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to refer the application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing it is a federally regulated entity.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred until the outcome of her federal complaint is known.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide submissions on the issue of deferral before making a determination.