Alan Whyte

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to identify any ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, affording the applicant 30 days to make submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.1, finding it lacked jurisdiction as no Code violations were alleged against the respondent union.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and disability, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed on preliminary grounds, including that the applicant had signed a full and final release in a previous arbitration, that another proceeding had dealt with the substance, and due to delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a one-day hearing be scheduled to address these preliminary issues and setting out a timeline for the parties to file submissions and documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the area of goods, services, and facilities, arising from her separation and divorce from the respondent.

The Tribunal requested written submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the relationship between spouses or ex-spouses is not a 'service' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

As the application did not engage a protected social area, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's human rights application for failing to disclose a prima facie case and lacking completeness.

The applicant filed a cross-request seeking to amend her application and an extension of time to do so.

The Tribunal found that the initial application was sufficient to meet the limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss and granted the applicant's request to file a complete, particularized amended application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex after being terminated one month prior to returning from pregnancy leave.

The applicant had also commenced a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) arising from the same termination.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability regarding a difficult return-to-work experience.

The applicant had also filed a grievance through her union relating to the same facts.

Both parties consented to deferring the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal agreed that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplication of proceedings and inconsistent results, as the Grievance Settlement Board has the authority to address the human rights issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

Upon reviewing the pleadings, the Tribunal found no apparent connection between the alleged ground of discrimination and the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions setting out the facts relied upon to demonstrate the required nexus.

The applicant, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability during her employment and upon her termination.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by forcing her to return to work early from medical leave.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by failing to recall her from a temporary layoff and misrepresenting the licensing requirements for a newly created marketing assistant position to avoid hiring her.

The Tribunal awarded $18,906 in lost wages, $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to develop an anti-discrimination policy.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege any ground or area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not allege facts that would constitute a reprisal or threat of reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal removed the ground of record of offences because the applicant explicitly denied it in the application form.

The respondents raised an issue of delay, as the application was filed more than a year after the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal deferred the delay issue, directing the parties to proceed to mediation first.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal after he was not hired by the respondent, which had taken over the business of his bankrupt former employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not explain how the alleged reprisal related to the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found no facts alleging that the respondent's behaviour was in response to claiming a right, participating in a proceeding, or refusing to infringe a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding her efforts to complete her articling.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because of an ongoing 'good character' proceeding before a Law Society Hearing Panel and a prior complaint.

The Tribunal found that the issues and remedies in the two proceedings were different and that the good character proceeding was not expected to proceed in the foreseeable future.

The respondent's request to dismiss or defer the application was denied, and the matter was directed to be listed for a hearing.

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

The respondent company submitted that the application should be stayed pursuant to Orders made by the Québec Superior Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the CCAA Orders had the effect of staying the proceeding and ordered that no further steps be taken for up to one year, subject to further communication from the parties.

The applicant, a casual employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after his request for December 24 off to care for his child while his wife attended religious observance was denied.

The applicant filed a grievance and a Request to Expedite the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or that financial inability to afford a babysitter constituted urgency.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the resolution of the ongoing grievance process, noting the complete overlap of facts and issues.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision directing the union to provide information, noting the applicant had not filed submissions.

Upon discovering the applicant had in fact filed submissions, the Tribunal reviewed them but concluded that the information from the union was still necessary.

The previous directions were confirmed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against Purolator Courier Ltd. and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the corporate respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions on the issue.

Relying on established case law, the Tribunal found that Purolator is a federally regulated entity governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after not being scheduled for work over the Christmas season.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred, arguing that a union grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the union to provide further submissions regarding the status of the grievance before deciding on the dismissal or deferral requests.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age in employment, along with a request to expedite the proceedings due to ongoing stress from the employer's requests for medical information.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or significant harm that would result if the request was denied, as she remained employed and the issues could be addressed in the ordinary course.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a Family Court trial between the applicant and his former spouse.

The respondent did not oppose the deferral but questioned its relevance and argued the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the facts and issues in the Family Court trial and the human rights application were entirely different.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise whether they consent to a telephone hearing.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file their Responses to a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The respondents argued that the union was in the midst of referendum elections, making it difficult to interview necessary witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting the far-reaching allegations, the involvement of potential witnesses in the election process, and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.