Eric Whist

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging sex discrimination.

He had been terminated due to complaints about his body odour, which he argued were based on subjective female standards that he, as a male, should not have to meet.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not provided new determinative evidence or established any other grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled half-day preliminary hearing, citing potential upcoming surgery and a dental appointment.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, noting that the surgery date was speculative and a dental appointment was insufficient grounds for an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant was permitted to renew the request if imminent surgery was confirmed with medical documentation.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the failure or request an extension.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not file the materials, explain her inability to do so, or request an extension.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming the respondent falsely stated her position was eliminated due to restructuring without disclosing plans to hire an on-site property accountant.

The Tribunal found no false representations were made, upheld the validity of the release, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal during his stay at a municipal emergency housing shelter.

He claimed his expulsion following an altercation was discriminatory because his behaviour was affected by medication for his back condition, and that his subsequent transfer to a smaller room upon readmission was reprisal for complaining to the mayor's office.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the shelter was aware of the medication or that it caused the behaviour.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the room transfer was necessary to accommodate a new family with special needs, and found that the shelter had adequately accommodated the applicant's disability by providing a grab bar and an orthopedic bed.

The applicant, a male customer service agent, alleged sex discrimination after his employment was terminated following progressive discipline for personal body odour.

He argued that female employees are more sensitive to smells and that enforcing a hygiene standard based on their complaints discriminated against him as a male.

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

The Tribunal noted the applicant admitted to having hygiene issues and failed to provide evidence linking the employer's enforcement of its hygiene policy to his gender.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found that the personal respondent sexually harassed her on one occasion, but dismissed her other allegations of harassment, reprisal, and failure to investigate.

The applicant argued the decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence and failed to make necessary credibility assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue her case and had not established any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was unaware of his rights under the Code until informed by a WSIB adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Code, especially since the applicant had pursued WSIB claims but failed to make inquiries about his human rights.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged that he was racially profiled and subjected to unnecessary aggressive behaviour when he was stopped, questioned, and briefly detained by a police officer investigating a nearby robbery.

The Tribunal found that the officer had reasonable grounds to stop the applicant, who matched the initial description of the suspect and was seen in the vicinity shortly after the robbery.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application, finding no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal at a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify how any new documents would be determinative and did not provide any jurisprudence to support his claims.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent cancelled her contract as an examiner because she missed a mandatory two-day training session due to the flu and strep throat.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, the application must be dismissed because the applicant's short-term, commonplace illnesses did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a Small Claims Court action based on the same facts.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual events underlying both proceedings and concluded that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application for delay and to remove the two named personal respondents.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, as the formal termination of employment and subsequent communications to Service Canada constituted incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents, finding their alleged conduct in failing to accommodate the applicant's disability and terminating her employment was a central issue in the case.

Both requests were denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant provided a physician's note confirming his inability to attend.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of a party constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination.

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

In her written submissions responding to the NOID, the applicant clarified that she was alleging age discrimination and reprisal for complaining to human resources.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that it be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

She subsequently filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to remove one personal respondent and add another, stating she had made an administrative error in her initial filing.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not object to the requests and had already filed Responses to the Application.

The Tribunal granted the requests, ordering the removal of the mistakenly named respondent and the addition of the intended respondent, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age against his employer and union.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to pursue a grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations against the employer regarding a 2007 injury and 2008 layoff as previously decided and untimely, respectively.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's return to work in April 2013 to proceed to a full hearing.

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

The matter was scheduled for mediation, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm whether he intended to proceed with the application.

Although the applicant provided updated contact information, he failed to explicitly confirm his intention to proceed despite multiple requests from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.