Alan Whyte

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Windsor Police Service more than one year after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that he was emotionally traumatized, feared reprisal due to his party promotion business, and was waiting for the outcome of a university complaint.

The Tribunal rejected these explanations, noting the applicant's public statements, participation in demonstrations, and ability to continue his business and studies.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested to defer his human rights application pending the outcome of a complaint process under his collective agreement with York University.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The applicant also filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent to file a full Response to facilitate negotiations.

The Tribunal granted the deferral and dismissed the request for a full Response, noting that it is typical policy not to require a full Response when an application is deferred to conserve resources.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that deemed his human rights application abandoned for failing to file a Reply.

The applicant submitted that he did not receive the Registrar's letter directing him to file a Reply because his former e-mail address was not working.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's submissions, allowed the request for reconsideration, and directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing the respondent's request to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (RFOP) to amend her human rights application to add disability as a ground of discrimination.

The respondent filed an RFOP to amend its response.

The Tribunal granted both requests as neither was opposed.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent and intervenor to provide an update on the status of the applicant's related grievances prior to the scheduled preliminary hearing.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking particulars and the production of the applicant's complete WSIB file.

The applicant failed to respond appropriately to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars, produce the WSIB file at the respondent's expense for photocopying, and clarify the nature of certain notes included in her productions.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the corporate respondent to provide the last names of two employees so they could be added as personal respondents.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test for adding respondents and found that the allegations against the two employees—one who told a co-worker to stop making racial remarks, and another who called the applicant 'shingles'—would not support a finding that they violated the Code.

The request was denied.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking particulars and answers to questions regarding the applicant's allegations of disability discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that while the applicant's documents provided some particulars, others remained outstanding.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to identify the remaining outstanding particulars and ordered a teleconference to determine the request.

Following an interim decision allowing the Commission to continue with the complaints, the Commission advised the Tribunal that all issues with the respondent had been resolved.

The Tribunal interpreted this communication as a request to withdraw the complaint and granted leave to withdraw.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race.

The respondents filed Requests for Orders during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, delay, and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day telephone conference call to address these preliminary issues and directed the parties on the procedure for making submissions.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status when she was not rehired after her pregnancy leave, during which the vendor sold the business to the purchaser.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the Application and to add the purchaser as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the vendor's principal as a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to do so.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of certain documents, including a limited portion of the applicant's medical records, and removed the purchaser's principal as a personal respondent.

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

The individual respondent failed to file a Response, despite being directed to do so in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the individual respondent is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules.

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

The respondent filed a response requesting dismissal on the grounds that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the issues.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing this request.

After the applicant failed to file a Reply by the initial deadline and a subsequent extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it denied his claim for benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the decision-making of statutory bodies like the WSIB does not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, and that the WSIB was not the applicant's employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal more than five years after his termination.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application due to delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing a union grievance and an OLRB complaint, and mistakenly believed he could not pursue a human rights application simultaneously.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and the applicant failed to make appropriate inquiries.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination in employment regarding her efforts to secure positions as a firefighter and a fire prevention inspector.

She brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to consolidate the applications and for the production of documents.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation on consent.

The request for document production was dismissed as premature, as the Tribunal's standard disclosure process had not yet occurred.

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

The University of Toronto requested to be removed as a respondent, which was unopposed and granted.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the personal respondents, which was also unopposed and granted.

The applicant further requested deferral of the application pending a grievance process under his collective agreement.

The Tribunal directed York University to clarify its position on the deferral request.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the human rights complaints under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the complainants had commenced a civil action.

The Tribunal found that the individual complainants were barred from participating because they had commenced a civil action seeking an order under s. 46.1.

However, the Tribunal held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission could continue with the complaints as if they were an application made under s. 35 of the Code, seeking public interest remedies.

The personal respondents were removed from the proceeding on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and assault by members of the respondent police service.

The respondent raised a delay issue, noting the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his 'B' driver's licence was downgraded to a 'G' licence due to a heart condition.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's efforts to reinstate his licence fell under s. 17(2) of O. Reg. 340/94, which is exempted from the Human Rights Code by s. 19(2).

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to clearly demonstrate it was operating under s. 17(2), as its communications referred to a waiver application under s. 21, which is not exempt from the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to hear the application.

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

The corporate respondent filed a Response, but the individual respondent failed to do so by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the individual respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted an extension to September 11, 2009, to file a Response and an explanation for the delay.