Eric Whist

The respondent requested the removal of the OPP Commissioner as a personal respondent and the deferral of the human rights application pending the completion of a related Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) complaints process.

The applicant consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests, removing the personal respondent and deferring the application until the conclusion of the OCPC process.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent City of Kingston consented, and the respondent union made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to an unspecified scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing dates had been set months in advance and the respondent failed to provide sufficient details to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference due to a medical appointment and a court family access arrangement.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had known of the hearing date for over a month and provided insufficient details to justify granting an adjournment so close to the scheduled date.

The applicant filed two related human rights applications.

The respondent EMS-Essex Windsor requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its principal witness would be out of the province.

The Tribunal found the request was made in a timely fashion and, noting no objections or prejudice to the other parties, granted the adjournment.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing less than a week before the hearing date, citing a conflicting audit committee meeting.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a scheduled business meeting does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting a late adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. and several other corporate and personal respondents.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether The Parks Companies and Sun Terra Farms Ltd. were proper parties.

The applicant submitted that they were common employers.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided sufficient information to indicate they could be respondents and directed them to file Responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment related to her maternity leave.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against one respondent, which the Tribunal accepted.

The remaining respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that a release signed by the applicant with a corporate entity also applied to him.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions on whether the release applied to the remaining respondent, as required by section 43(2) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and a personal respondent.

The Notice of Application sent to the personal respondent was returned as unknown.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's current or most recent mailing address to facilitate service.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and seek further document production just two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The proposed amendments included allegations regarding a failure to investigate a prior complaint and new allegations of age discrimination in recent job competitions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was unjustifiably late and would cause significant prejudice to the respondent by necessitating an adjournment.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could file a separate application for the recent job competitions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and eight personal respondents.

The applicant subsequently requested to remove seven of the personal respondents, which the respondents did not oppose.

The Tribunal granted the request.

The applicant's union also requested to intervene in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the issues raised, with the extent of participation to be determined at mediation or hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding her accommodation and denial of a transfer.

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a previously withdrawn union grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the union to provide submissions on whether the withdrawn grievance constitutes a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the matter before deciding the dismissal request.

The applicant, a server at a golf course, alleged she was sexually harassed by a customer and that the respondent employer contributed to the behaviour and failed to adequately respond to her complaints, leading to a poisoned work environment and her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's management did not encourage or condone the customer's inappropriate behaviour.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent's response to the applicant's complaint was reasonable and met its obligations under the Code, particularly given the reasonable assumption that the police were investigating the customer's conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related grievance filed by the applicant.

The grievance and the application both alleged a failure to accommodate the applicant's disability and sought reinstatement to full-time employment.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, deferring the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance processes routinely deal with human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file their responses by March 8, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed two related human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services based on race, disability, and other grounds, arising from an incident where she was taken to a hospital for a mental health assessment.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be heard together given the common facts and issues.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to remove two lawyers, who acted as counsel for the institutional respondents, as personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them named personally.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex against her former employer, Chrysler, and its disability benefits administrator, Manulife.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Manulife, finding the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against Chrysler at this preliminary stage, as there was a factual dispute regarding when the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by police officers during an incident on December 26, 2008.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a similar complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the OCCPS complaint dealt with the identical facts and issues, and deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.