Alan Whyte

The applicant requested that her human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance proceeding.

The respondent County consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement involves the same facts and human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the calculation of her retirement allowance.

The respondents raised the issue of timeliness, as the application was filed more than one year after the last incident.

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

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that she was ignorant of the time limit, relied on statements from the respondents, and was prevented from filing due to her disability.

Finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal noted its normal approach is to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement raising the same human rights issues.

Finding no reason to depart from this approach, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He alleged bias, criticized the adjudicator's evidentiary rulings, and attacked the respondents' evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as his submissions were an attempt to re-argue the case and challenge rulings that should have been addressed at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in his employment and termination.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged his supervisor failed to hear his side of the story regarding a workplace incident, breaching his right to free speech.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not allege any facts demonstrating a reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the adjudication of legal disputes by the courts does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted a newspaper article, a dictionary definition, and previous case law in support of his request.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide any new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, as required by Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of sexual orientation.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent requested an abbreviated hearing on the merits, which the adjudicator declined.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant, a regular customer of the respondent's store, alleged discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The applicant cited several incidents of poor customer service, including receiving the wrong coffee and not receiving a debit receipt.

The Tribunal found that the incidents involved routine customer service issues and that the respondent had addressed them reasonably.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove discrimination, sexual solicitation, or reprisal on a balance of probabilities, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being denied a promotion due to his placement on an attendance management program following a workplace injury.

The applicant had also filed a grievance regarding the same denial, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a significant overlap of facts and human rights issues between the two proceedings, and deferred the application in accordance with its rules.

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

One of the respondents failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's WSIB claims adjudication process appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint.

The applicant, a volunteer firefighter who suffered a back injury, alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate him and inappropriately relied on a WSIB decision to prohibit him from performing his duties.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the WSIB claims adjudicator's decision did not appropriately deal with the substantive issues relating to the accommodation of the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming the respondent refused to reinstate her following a pregnancy leave.

The respondent, an independent broker with CIBC Wood Gundy, claimed CIBC was the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that notice of the proceeding be given to CIBC, as it may be affected by the outcome and any potential remedy, and provided CIBC an opportunity to request to intervene.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a preliminary WSIB decision denying benefits appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it premature because the WSIB decision was not final and the applicant intended to appeal.

The Tribunal also directed a conference call hearing to address the respondent's allegation that the application was filed late.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a prior duty of fair representation complaint at the OLRB.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB did not consider human rights issues or apply human rights principles.

The Tribunal ordered further submissions on the issue of whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination sought an order to add the CEO and a Regional Manager of the respondent employer as personal respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying the two-part test from Payne and Greenhorn.

The Tribunal found that the Application contained no allegations against the CEO and that the mentions of the Regional Manager could not serve as a basis for a finding of discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal, as well as breaches of a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant also filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to add the Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere (FAMHE) as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add FAMHE as a respondent and ordered that the application be treated as a contravention of settlement application under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2009.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to add respondents, amend the Statement of Facts, and obtain document production.

Subsequently, counsel for the corporate respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing due to unavailability, without providing reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request as it was made outside the five-day period without exceptional circumstances, but converted the scheduled hearing into a case management conference to address the applicant's Request.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed in employment, claiming the respondent created an uncomfortable religious atmosphere in the workplace and terminated his employment for religious reasons.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, which included religious questioning during the interview, prayer at meetings, and a discussion about heaven and hell, constituted discrimination on the basis of creed.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's termination was due to the company's dire financial situation and not based on religion.

The applicant was awarded $3,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondent was ordered to implement human rights policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding statements and orders made by judicial officers during court proceedings.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the adjudication of legal disputes constitutes 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that comments made during judicial proceedings and the outcomes of those proceedings fall within the adjudicative function of the courts and do not constitute 'services' within the meaning of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of association and reprisal.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had notice of the hearing and had not updated his address.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for failure to attend.