Eric Whist

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on colour by a fire inspector.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was unaware of the human rights system in Ontario due to language and cultural barriers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was capable of making serious inquiries into his rights and did not act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of the hearing due to the sudden illness of their counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the institutional respondent should assign alternative counsel from their law firm.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that counsel's illness constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that it would be unfair to require the respondents to proceed with substitute counsel in a complex case.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent university.

The applicant requested to write an exam on an alternative date for convenience related to her work schedule, without prior instructor approval.

The respondent denied the request, citing its examination policy requiring students to write at the same time to maintain academic integrity, but offered to keep its test centre open late on the scheduled exam day to accommodate her.

The applicant withdrew from the course and alleged a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no Code-related reason for needing to write on the alternative date, and the respondent's refusal and subsequent efforts to arrange a time on the scheduled day did not constitute discrimination.

The applicant, an employee of the LCBO, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his requests for a workplace transfer.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests to amend his application to include additional allegations regarding child care access and work scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests to amend, finding that the new allegations did not flow from the original application and would unduly complicate the proceedings.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's request for production of documents regarding the LCBO's transfer policy to be premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of dental services by the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his illnesses, including Hepatitis C and depression.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide persuasive medical evidence that his condition was so debilitating as to prevent him from pursuing his rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, over a year after her employment was terminated.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant's medical condition and stress did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on colour, specifically regarding the conduct of a Fire Marshall inspector during an investigation.

The Tribunal previously questioned its jurisdiction, noting the application appeared to challenge a court proceeding.

The applicant clarified the complaint related to the inspector's conduct during the 2008 investigation, not his later court testimony.

This clarification raised a new jurisdictional issue regarding the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, constructive dismissal, and interference with future employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the multiple delays in bringing forward her allegations and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was laid off and denied the ability to bump junior employees.

The applicant had previously grieved the lay-off, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance after a seven-day hearing, finding the assessment process was fair and based on objective data.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant had a full opportunity to litigate the fairness of the process at arbitration and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing he was an agent of the applicant's employer (Just Energy) and thus protected by a full and final release the applicant had signed with Just Energy.

The respondent also argued there was no employment relationship between him and the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the release was not intended to unconditionally extend its benefits to the respondent as a third party.

The Tribunal also found a sufficient nexus between the parties to constitute a relationship with respect to employment under the Code.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the last cited incident.

The respondent also requested that the applicant's union be added as a respondent, which both the applicant and the union opposed.

The Tribunal directed an in-person hearing to address the preliminary issue of delay and, if necessary, whether the union should be named as a respondent.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance arising from substantially the same facts.

The union also requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed due to concerns about the union's representation.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the collective agreement and accommodation policies.

The respondents' request to remove personal respondents was deferred.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional particulars regarding her employment, a Ministry of Labour decision regarding unpaid wages, and a claim for general damages for failure to accommodate.

The respondents objected to the proposed amendments, arguing they added a new head of damages and were untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments provided clarification and context without altering the subject matter, and that the respondents would not be prejudiced as they were given an opportunity to amend their response.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal be dismissed for delay or deferred pending an Employment Standards claim.

The applicant argued the application was timely because she continued to be paid until June 6, 2009, and filed on June 7, 2010 (a Monday).

The Tribunal found it required further submissions from both parties to determine the date of the last incident of discrimination, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and the nature of the parallel Employment Standards claim.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file further submissions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant objected, stating they are two different issues.

The Tribunal found that there is an overlap between the issues raised in the two proceedings, particularly regarding the nature of the applicant's claimed disability and potential compensation for lost income.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Branch deals with the applicant's objections.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued she was ignorant of her rights and had pursued other avenues, such as an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude do not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and record of offences following his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to record of offences and harassment, finding no connection to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely on the allegation of sex discrimination, as the applicant claimed female employees were not disciplined for missing work.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, creed, and disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

He argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because he did not learn of his rights under the Code until 2009, and provided witness statements and medical documents in support.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that ignorance of the law does not establish good faith delay, and that the applicant failed to provide new determinative facts or show that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The applicant, a Health Care Aide with physical restrictions, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She was successfully accommodated in an evening shift position but applied for a day shift position that she could not physically perform, hoping it would lead to a transfer to a day shift position she could perform.

The respondent denied the application and assigned the position to a less senior employee.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent had already successfully accommodated the applicant, and the failure to transfer her to a preferred shift, which would require displacing another employee and overriding seniority rights under the Collective Agreement, did not constitute discrimination.