Alan Whyte

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day time limit, nor did they respond to a subsequent letter from the Tribunal extending the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, would result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against Toronto Dominion Insurance.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application was within its jurisdiction.

Finding that the employer was a federally regulated entity (TD Bank) and noting the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Tribunal concluded the employment relationship was not governed by the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and requested that the matter be dealt with on an expedited basis.

The respondent opposed the request.

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

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

The respondents raised the preliminary issue of delay, as the application was filed more than six years after the applicant's retirement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide written submissions and any supporting medical evidence to determine the preliminary issue of timeliness and delay.

The respondent's request for deferral of the Application was previously dismissed in an interim decision.

The Tribunal noted at the time that no submissions had been received from the respondent.

It was later discovered that the respondent had made timely submissions, but they were misdirected and not brought to the adjudicator's attention.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that their content did not change the previous decision to dismiss the deferral request.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in the downgrading of the applicant's driver's licence.

The respondent argued the application was barred under s. 34(11)(a) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had an outstanding appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was not seeking human rights remedies in the civil appeal.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day hearing to address a separate jurisdictional issue regarding whether the Highway Traffic Act regulations exempt the medical qualifications for drivers from the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against Toronto Dominion Insurance.

The respondent claimed the applicant was actually employed by Toronto Dominion Bank, a federally regulated entity, and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to file submissions on the proper employer and jurisdiction, but the applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision ordering the applicant to file the required submissions by a new deadline, warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the application.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding filed by the applicant's husband against a corporate entity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the parties in the two proceedings were completely different and that the human rights issues raised in the application would not be addressed in the ESA proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability after his Labour Market Re-entry program was terminated early by the WSIB.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the WSIB appeal involved substantially the same facts, legal issues regarding the duty to accommodate, and potential remedies.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability arising from statements and orders made by judges and justices of the peace.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to provide written submissions on preliminary issues, including whether complaints about the judiciary are properly the subject matter of the Human Rights Code and whether adjudication constitutes a 'service'.

Finding the written submissions insufficient to decide the preliminary issues, the Tribunal directed a one-day oral hearing and ordered the two related files to be heard together.

The respondent requested to defer the hearing of the human rights application pending the completion of a proceeding before the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver written submissions on the request for deferral, and allowed the respondent to reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and requested expedited proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no urgent circumstances or harm described.

The respondent argued it was incorrectly named and that the actual employer, Toronto Dominion Bank, falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide submissions on the proper name of the employer and whether it is subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The applicant, a police officer who testified as a Crown witness in a murder trial, filed a human rights application alleging that defence counsel discriminated against him during cross-examination and closing arguments.

The Tribunal directed submissions on whether this interaction fell within the social area of 'goods, services and facilities' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that defence counsel does not provide a service to, nor is in a service relationship with, an adverse Crown witness.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The corporate respondent sought an amendment to correctly identify it as the Toronto Police Services Board, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to clarify which criminal charges he was referring to and set a schedule for the parties to provide written submissions on the deferral request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability arising from statements and orders made by judges and justices of the peace.

The respondent Attorney General challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that judicial conduct is not subject to the Code and court adjudication is not a 'service'.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issues and on the respondent's request to consolidate the matter with another application filed by the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability arising from statements and orders made by a judge during a civil court proceeding.

The respondents asserted that the Superior Court of Justice is not a suable entity, that complaints about judicial conduct are not properly the subject of Code proceedings, and that court adjudication does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional and procedural issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after the respondent downgraded his driver's licence.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the application was barred under s. 34(11)(a) of the Human Rights Code because a related civil proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under s. 34(11)(a) or deferred pending the conclusion of the related Court of Appeal proceeding.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was employed in OPG's Nuclear Division, which may be governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the provincial Code.

The Tribunal also noted a grievance was filed dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file submissions on the jurisdiction and deferral issues before requiring a full response to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent lawyer's cross-examination and closing arguments during a murder trial were discriminatory.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the allegations fall within the social area of 'goods, services and facilities' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, before determining whether to defer the application pending the criminal appeal.