Eric Whist

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin by failing to involve his band and community and failing to become familiar with his Haudenosaunee traditions, contrary to Part 10 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent requested early dismissal of these allegations under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing they had been dealt with by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB).

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations, finding that a prior CFSRB decision and a subsequent settlement agreement before the CFSRB appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant was directed to provide particulars regarding his remaining reprisal allegations.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include allegations that his recent termination was a reprisal for filing the application.

The respondents opposed the amendment, noting the applicant had filed grievances regarding the termination and requested the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it was late, would substantially broaden the scope of the hearing, and would prejudice the respondents.

The Tribunal directed that the issue of deferral pending the outcome of the grievances would be dealt with as a preliminary matter at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical restrictions between May 2007 and October 2008.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed in July 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was pursuing internal negotiations for compensation until August 2009.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal to pay compensation in August 2009 was not a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the subsequent 11-month delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its principal witness, the applicant's former direct supervisor, was totally disabled and unable to attend for medical reasons.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the medical information was unclear and a delay would affect her mental health.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of a fundamental witness constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to protect her and her children's identities by using initials.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing would likely involve sensitive evidence regarding the applicant's mental health and the involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

Pursuant to Rules 3.11 and 3.11.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal granted the request to protect the identity of the children, ordering that the applicant and her children be referred to by their initials in all Tribunal decisions.

The personal respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed as a respondent, arguing that the allegations against him were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while some allegations from 2002 were dismissed for delay in a previous interim decision, the allegations relating to a September 2009 audit occurred within one year of the application being filed and were therefore timely.

The applicant, a 65-year-old West Indian Canadian Registered Practical Nurse, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age after transferring to the respondent's Windsor office.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing there was no factual basis connecting the applicant's workplace frustrations to a protected ground.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective facts linking the alleged unfair treatment, including work assignments and a lack of computer training, to her race, colour, or age.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding a request for the Waterloo Regional Police Services (WRPS) to disclose documents related to its investigation of the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the WRPS to produce the requested records, including interview recordings and police notes, subject to modified standard terms based on D.P. v. Wagg.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the investigating officer's notes from a meeting with the applicant were protected by litigation privilege, finding the notes were produced as part of the officer's public duties and not principally for litigation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in determining the date of the last incident of discrimination and failed to properly assess the evidence and his reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the decision, which are not valid grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The Tribunal concluded that there were no new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, or matters of public importance to justify reconsidering the decision.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss allegations of discrimination occurring prior to May 5, 2009, and to remove several named personal respondents.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations were out of time under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit under section 34(2).

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, noting there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability or ability to remedy any alleged Code infringement.

The respondent requested an order for the production of various documents from the applicant, including tax returns, passport entries, and medical records.

The applicant agreed to provide most of the documents but disputed the production of all treating physicians' records and a list of travel outside Collingwood.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request for the disputed documents because the respondent failed to comply with Rule 19.4(c), which requires parties to confer and attempt to resolve production issues before seeking an order from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant's union, the United Food Commercial Workers Locals 175 & 633, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deny the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, creed, and reprisal.

During the hearing on the merits, after providing his evidence-in-chief and being cross-examined, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The participating respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to medical reasons, providing a doctor's note.

The applicant failed to confirm delivery of the request to the respondent or seek their consent as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Despite this procedural failure, the Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the medical evidence, directing the applicant to contact the respondent to identify mutually available dates within twelve weeks.

The applicant, a 60-year-old man, alleged age discrimination after he was not hired for a store associate position at the respondent's new retail store.

The applicant argued that the respondent's hiring process, which relied on group interviews and role-playing rather than reviewing resumes and work experience, was discriminatory and that he was passed over in favour of younger, less experienced candidates.

The Tribunal found that the recruitment process was not discriminatory and that the applicant was not hired because he performed poorly during the speed meeting and role-play exercises compared to other candidates.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and reprisal by his employer and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding his return to work and accommodation of his disability.

The WSIB requested an order to dismiss the application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its adjudicative decisions.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss at this preliminary stage, finding it was not clear that the allegations related solely to the WSIB's adjudicative function, and allowed the application to proceed in the normal course.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after she announced her pregnancy.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the outcome of two civil actions involving the applicant and related franchise entities.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the civil actions related to shareholder disputes and not the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to correct typographical and clerical errors.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability (diabetes) by refusing to hire him for a full-time security guard position on three occasions in 2006 and 2009.

The Tribunal found that the three job competitions constituted a series of incidents, making the 2006 allegations timely.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence of discrimination.

The applicant was offered an on-call position in April 2009, which was the standard starting position for all successful candidates, and there was no evidence that his disability factored into the hiring decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in employment.

The corporate respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a related union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the union and the employer considered the grievance to be resolved, and the applicant was not seeking to continue the grievance process but rather wished to proceed with her human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed that it proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, marital status, and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because a concurrent proceeding under the Employment Standards Act was underway addressing similar facts, particularly regarding reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that deferral would prevent concurrent proceedings on the issue of reprisal and avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.