Eric Whist

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by hospital security guards.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had also commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action sought damages for the same alleged Code infringements, even though the Code was not explicitly pleaded.

Consequently, the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Code and dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment be deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration concerning the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and the application shared central facts and issues, and that proceeding concurrently would be inefficient and risk inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a second human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in two 2009 job competitions.

She requested that this new application be consolidated or heard together with her earlier 2008 application, which alleged similar discrimination in previous hiring processes.

The Tribunal granted the request to hear the applications together, finding common issues of fact and law regarding an alleged pattern of discrimination, and adjourned the scheduled hearing dates to allow the respondent time to prepare.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of requested documents and granted the respondent a partial extension of time to file its response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by counsel for the respondent during a previous Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Human Rights Code.

After considering the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as opposing counsel was acting in an adversarial role and not providing a service to the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a related union grievance proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, noting that an arbitration hearing was imminent and would deal with the same allegations.

Following its general practice, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance process.

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

After updating her mailing address twice, mail sent by the Tribunal was returned as moved.

The Tribunal emailed the applicant warning that failure to provide updated contact information could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on family status and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not provide written submissions in response to the NOID.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination by Toronto Police Service officers during two stops.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with through the Police Services Act complaints process and reviewed by the OCCPS.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the applicability of section 45.1.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on an outstanding production request pending the section 45.1 determination, and noted that the Toronto Police Association must file a formal request if it wishes to intervene.

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

Both parties filed multiple Requests for Orders during Proceedings (RFOPs).

The applicant sought to add corporate and personal respondents, amend her application to include issues related to a separate defamation lawsuit, and compel third parties to produce documents and statements.

The respondents sought to remove a personal respondent and dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed all requests, finding the applicant's document requests premature and improperly directed, the proposed new respondents unnecessary, and the defamation issues irrelevant to the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent or dismiss the application.

The applicant requested that her human rights hearing be moved from London to Toronto, or alternatively that she be permitted to participate by teleconference or videoconference, or that the Tribunal cover her travel costs.

The Tribunal denied the requests, noting that it does not cover travel costs or move hearings due to financial constraints.

The Tribunal also found that in-person attendance was necessary for a fair and expeditious hearing given the number of parties and potential witnesses.

The respondents requested a further extension of time to file their Response to a human rights application, citing a delay in receiving a Provincial Court order.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the respondents 21 days from the receipt of the order to file their Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the WSIB's return-to-work process did not address the procedural and substantive duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship as required by the Code.

The applicants and the corporate respondent participated in a joint mediation where all parties requested that the two applications be heard together, as they arise from the same employment situation and involve the same respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to hear the applications together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin after being issued a seatbelt ticket by a police officer.

The respondents, employees of the Toronto Police Services and the Ontario Civil Commission on Police Services, filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, including section 45.1 of the Code, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal deferred the requests and scheduled a half-day hearing to afford the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions on the preliminary issues.

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

The applicant subsequently died.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's estate to confirm whether it wished to continue with the application.

After receiving no response from the estate within the required timeframe, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, with the last incident occurring more than a year prior to filing.

After the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and subsequently decided to continue processing the application based on the litigation guardian's submissions, the respondent requested an order for production of documents regarding the delay and a deferral of the application.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine if the application is barred by section 34 of the Human Rights Code, ordered the litigation guardian to produce relevant documents prior to the hearing, and relieved the respondent from filing a Response on the merits until the preliminary issue is resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and two individuals.

One of the individual respondents no longer worked for the corporate respondent and could not be served at the business address provided.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for the individual respondent within 20 days if he wished to proceed against him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was not returned to his original position following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an interim agreement reached during the grievance process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, the respondents requested deferral pending the outcome of the ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the interim agreement did not finally resolve the grievance.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and disability.

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under emotional and physical duress following a recent heart attack and family death.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant understood the release and was not under duress.

The Tribunal concluded that the release was valid and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file a Response, a stay of the application, and an order anonymizing the applicant.

The respondents required an extension to seek a court order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access police records related to the applicant, who was a minor at the material time.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and ordered the anonymization of the applicant and his next friend, but found a stay of the application unnecessary.