Eric Whist

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties had engaged in settlement discussions and filed a form indicating a settlement had been reached, leading the Tribunal to close the file.

However, the parties disputed the terms of the release, specifically regarding a workplace safety claim, and the minutes of settlement were never signed by all parties.

The Tribunal found there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no settlement was actually reached.

The application was dismissed, and the Tribunal invited submissions on whether to reconsider its decision disposing of the original application.

The applicant, a former tenant, alleged that her landlord and property manager discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of race, creed, gender, and receipt of public assistance.

She claimed they repeatedly entered her unit, stole small items, tampered with her belongings, and deliberately cut a pipe to flood her apartment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were highly improbable, unsupported by independent evidence, and lacked any reasonable prospect of being proven on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on colour, claiming the respondent, a Fire Marshall inspector, provided false testimony at a court proceeding that led to the applicant's conviction under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the conduct of persons participating in court proceedings generally does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file further submissions on whether the respondent's role as a witness can be considered a service.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on perceived disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already addressed in mediated grievance settlements, some allegations were out of time, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss to a scheduled half-day in-person hearing, outlining the specific issues the parties must address.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, family status, and age after not being hired for a full-time permanent position.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on age and family status as it was plain and obvious they fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the claims based on race, colour, and place of origin fell outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to file an amended application with more detailed facts.

The applicant's counsel requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because he was recently retained and unavailable.

The request was made beyond the 14-day limit set out in the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify rescheduling, as counsel accepted the retainer knowing of the potential conflict.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, harassment, and reprisal after his employer eliminated the midnight shift and transferred him to the afternoon shift, which conflicted with his child access arrangements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer met any duty to accommodate by delaying the transfer and offering temporary schedule modifications to allow the applicant time to alter his access arrangements.

The applicant failed to facilitate the accommodation and resigned.

The harassment and reprisal claims were also dismissed as the applicant did not report the alleged harassment to management and there was no evidence of retaliation.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested a six-month adjournment, which the respondent consented to.

The Tribunal adjourned the application on the condition that it would be dismissed as abandoned if no party requested to proceed by November 16, 2010.

As no such request was received, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on August 4, 2008, when the applicant was laid off, and that the application filed in October 2009 was out of time.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to add three new allegations of discriminatory treatment by his employer.

The Tribunal applied the Boldt-Macpherson factors and allowed the amendment in part.

The allegation regarding the employer's failure to respond to medical reports and transfer requests was permitted as it flowed from the original continuum of facts.

The allegations regarding Sunday shifts and future accommodation requests were dismissed as being distinct new allegations or speculative in nature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent assigned him modified work beyond his medical restrictions prior to his last day of work in May 2002.

The applicant argued that the respondent's subsequent refusals to provide employment documents between 2002 and 2009 constituted a series of discriminatory incidents, bringing his 2009 application within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the refusal to provide documents for WSIB proceedings did not constitute further incidents of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that his recent discovery of an ergonomist's report and his ignorance of his rights under the Code constituted good faith reasons for the delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant emailed the Tribunal the day before the scheduled hearing to state he did not intend to pursue his application, and he did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal treated the email as a request to withdraw.

The respondents consented, and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory service by the respondent's dental and administrative staff.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the respondent might delay the grievance arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, noting the grievances were scheduled to be heard imminently.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, finding that concurrent proceedings would be inefficient and risk inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a tenant in social housing, alleged discrimination on multiple grounds, claiming the respondents conspired with the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) by sharing her income information, which led to a reduction and delay in her income support payments.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's bald assertions of a conspiracy based on race and other grounds lacked a coherent or plausible account of events that could reasonably lead to success.

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

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release, or alternatively, that it be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's duty of fair representation application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the signing of the release was a central issue in both proceedings and deferred the application until the OLRB process concluded to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being laid off and denied bumping rights.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a grievance arbitration that dismissed the applicant's claims of unfairness.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or as an abuse of process.

The applicants, two Black lawyers, alleged they were racially profiled when a librarian/administrator at the Peel Law Association asked them for identification in the lawyers' lounge at the Brampton Courthouse.

The Tribunal found that the applicants established a prima facie case of discrimination, as they were the only persons questioned among several unknown individuals in the lounge.

The respondents failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for singling out the applicants.

The Tribunal concluded that race and colour were factors in the decision to question them and the aggressive manner in which it was done.

The respondents were ordered to pay $2,000 to each applicant for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by shelter staff and residents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had already commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the civil action effectively sought remedies for Code infringements, triggering section 34(11) of the Code, which bars duplicate proceedings.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

A related grievance was also filed on her behalf by her union, raising the same issues and seeking remedies under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

The Tribunal granted the request, deferring the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.