Eric Whist

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging she signed a previous settlement agreement under duress and without legal representation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not allege that the respondent had breached any term of the settlement.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to set aside or void a settlement on the basis of duress under s. 45.9(3), as its authority is limited to remedying actual contraventions by another party.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a scheduled grievance arbitration and an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The applicant agreed to deferral pending the arbitration but opposed deferral for the WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration, noting that arbitrators have the power to enforce human rights obligations, and declined to rule on the WSIB deferral request at this stage.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing because he was incarcerated and unable to attend.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the application was frivolous and the delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's incarceration constituted an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control, making him unable to attend the scheduled hearing.

The request for an adjournment was granted, and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled after the applicant's release.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by the London Police Services Board and its Chief of Police.

The allegations stemmed from the police's failure to lay charges in relation to an alleged sexual assault and property crimes, as well as a public statement made by the Chief of Police about men's involvement in domestic violence.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the police investigations and the domestic violence procedure for delay, as they occurred more than one year before the application was filed and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation regarding the Chief's public comments, finding that the comments did not constitute an act of discrimination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent university regarding disability accommodation.

The applicant argued the original decision misconstrued evidence and contained factual errors.

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

The applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, or matters of general public importance.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide directed particulars by the deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had attempted to email the particulars before the deadline but made a typographical error in the respondent's email address.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application for a clerical error, finding no substantive prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a partial extension of time for document disclosure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The respondents were present.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of perceived disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing that the issues had been resolved through prior grievance settlements.

The Tribunal found that while section 45.1 of the Code did not apply because the grievance process did not explicitly consider human rights principles, allowing the application to proceed regarding pre-settlement events would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not sign the settlement under duress.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding post-settlement events, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case connecting the employer's actions to her perceived disability.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, a foreign-trained lawyer, alleged that the respondent engaged in reprisal by requiring him to write two further examinations to obtain a Certificate of Qualification, following a previous human rights complaint.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the examination requirements and his prior efforts to enforce his rights under the Code, noting the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation for the requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal and discrimination, add a new remedy, and disclose the institutional respondent's financial statement.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was late and prejudicial given the impending hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request in its entirety, finding that the proposed amendments were substantial, would unduly broaden the scope of the hearing, and would prejudice the respondents due to the short time available to respond.

The applicant filed four human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the two applications filed in 2008, finding they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and were also barred by section 53(8) of the Code because they raised substantially the same subject matter as a previous complaint settled with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal allowed the two applications filed in 2010 to proceed, finding the applicant provided sufficient particulars of alleged discriminatory comments and close supervision by his acting supervisor to establish a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

After the corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy, staying the proceedings against it, the applicant requested to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that the allegations supported a potential finding of personal liability under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that bankruptcy proceedings against a corporation do not shield individuals from personal liability for discriminatory acts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate by his employer regarding a request to transfer to a location closer to his home.

The corporate respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had two active grievances dealing with the same underlying facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application would result in concurrent, overlapping proceedings and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that his former counsel missed a later incident of discrimination that would have brought the application within the time limit.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new information could reasonably have been provided earlier during the initial submissions on delay, and that repairing a deficiency in the presentation of the case is not a valid ground for reconsideration.

The respondent filed a request for an order during proceedings to compel the applicant to provide particulars regarding his allegations of differential treatment based on age and sex.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the applicant to provide the names of female haircutters who allegedly received complaints, but the applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal reiterated its order, warning the applicant under Rule 5.7 that failure to plead facts with sufficient particularity could result in the Tribunal refusing to allow evidence on those facts.

The applicant was ordered to produce the particulars by July 13, 2011.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her long-term disability benefits were terminated by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the denial of benefits, finding no link between the denial and the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations that a rehabilitation worker made harassing and demeaning comments related to the applicant's disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal amend a previous decision dismissing the application for delay, arguing that the decision mischaracterized its position regarding whether the applicant's lay-off was temporary or permanent.

The respondent sought the amendment under Rule 25, which allows for the correction of clerical errors.

The Tribunal acknowledged the mischaracterization but dismissed the request, finding that reassessing the interpretation of submissions goes beyond correcting a minor, obvious clerical error.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour by subjecting her to harassment and intimidation while shopping at their store, including using the public announcement system to track her movements.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations highly improbable and unsupported by evidence, concluding there was no reasonable prospect she could prove a Code violation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing four days before it was scheduled, citing late disclosure of documents by the respondents, lack of preparation due to medical conditions, and a desire to seek legal assistance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The late documents were mostly previously disclosed or legal submissions, the medical claims were unsupported by evidence, and the request for time to seek legal counsel was not made in a timely fashion.