Alan Whyte

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability regarding his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance challenging the termination.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised were part of an ongoing grievance process and noted that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant, a cashier, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after her employer changed her long-standing work schedule, which she required to care for her grandchild with special needs.

She sought an interim remedy to maintain her Monday to Thursday, 9 AM to 5 PM schedule pending the outcome of her human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had an arguable case, the balance of convenience favoured her, and it was just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy.

The respondent was ordered to maintain her former work schedule and full-time status.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the respondent 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status against multiple respondents, including his former wife, judges, Legal Aid Ontario, the York Region Police, and others, arising from a family law dispute.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents except the York Region Police, finding no jurisdiction over the other parties as the allegations did not relate to a protected social area or ground under the Code.

The claim against the police for allegedly refusing services on the basis of sex was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to add Janice Harding as a party to her human rights application.

The Tribunal found that an order was unnecessary because the organizational respondent had already identified Janice Harding and filed a Response on behalf of both itself and Ms. Harding.

The request was dismissed without prejudice to the respondents' ability to seek her removal in the future.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision noting the application disclosed no facts within the scope of section 8 and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it does not have a general power to evaluate employment dismissals absent a Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Finding that the grievance process was ongoing and could address the human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of transcripts of various Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Justice proceedings, arguing they were necessary to demonstrate discrimination by the courts.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that court transcripts are not in the possession or control of the respondents, but are typically obtained directly from free-lance court reporters on a fee-for-service basis.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after being terminated for refusing to work during his vacation.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not allege facts falling within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, as there was no allegation that the applicant attempted to claim or enforce Code rights.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide submissions detailing how the alleged conduct constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The applicant, a tenured professor, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding her application for promotion, specifically citing comments made about her past maternity leaves.

She brought two requests for orders during proceedings: one for an expedited hearing and another for the preservation of documents related to a meeting about her promotion.

The Tribunal denied the request for an expedited hearing, finding insufficient evidence of urgent circumstances or harm if the request was denied.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for document preservation, ordering the respondents not to destroy any documents associated with the specified meeting.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment and benefits were terminated following a cancer diagnosis.

The applicant brought a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing his dire prognosis, ongoing medical treatment, and inability to afford therapies due to the cancellation of his benefits.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's poor prognosis and the risk that he might not survive until a regular hearing constituted truly urgent circumstances.

A teleconference was scheduled to address the applicant's remaining requests for orders during proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of an outstanding union grievance related to the same matter.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further written submissions regarding the respondent's request for deferral, noting that her initial reply lacked sufficient detail.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One respondent, Janet Kauk, failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled by Minutes of Settlement in a prior grievance.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement under extreme emotional and financial stress.

The Tribunal ordered a teleconference to receive further submissions on the section 45.1 issue.

The applicant, a Muslim man, applied for a security guard position with the respondent.

During the mandatory training session, he requested approximately one hour off on Friday afternoons to attend prayers.

The respondent immediately rejected his request and removed him from the recruitment process, citing the mandatory nature of the training and his failure to disclose his need for accommodation earlier.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The respondent was ordered to pay $2,520 for lost wages and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement human rights policies and training.

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

The Tribunal noted that the narrative did not clearly identify how the respondents subjected the applicant to reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code, nor did it identify any other ground of discrimination.

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 respondent requested that the human rights application alleging housing discrimination be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB proceeding consisted only of a brief attendance to withdraw the application, and the underlying issues were not addressed.

The request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings due to dire financial circumstances.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing there were no urgent circumstances affecting the fair and just resolution of the merits.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would distinguish the case from others before the Tribunal.

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 participate could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.