Eric Whist

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sexual orientation, and age by the Toronto Police Service during two police stops.

The applicant brought a request to add the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) as a respondent and for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that the TPSB is a proper respondent, as it can be held liable for the actions of individual police officers under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ordered the Chief of Police to provide a formal response to the applicant's request for the production of documents.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged she was terminated because of a disability after she was involved in a serious motorcycle accident.

The respondent maintained that the decision to terminate her employment for poor performance was made prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found credible evidence, including a probationary review report and the hiring of a replacement, demonstrating that the decision to terminate the applicant was made before the accident occurred.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination date was accelerated due to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her union for failing to file a grievance on her behalf in 2005.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

Upon discovering that the applicant's submissions on the delay issue had not been considered, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter on its own motion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations, including a learning disability and lack of funds, did not justify the nearly four-year delay, particularly the 17-month delay after her related labour board complaint was dismissed.

The application remained dismissed.

The applicant filed a late request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that there were new facts, that his counsel did not properly present his case, and that the decision did not address all issues or acknowledge his positive community contributions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the information presented was mostly before the Tribunal at the original hearing, the complaints about counsel were an attempt to repair perceived deficiencies, and the applicant failed to establish compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of age, marital status, sex, and race, and engaged in reprisal, when they cancelled her membership to a singles event organization.

The respondents maintained that the membership was cancelled because the applicant had previously attended events without paying and had made negative comments about the organization to other members.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the membership was cancelled for business reasons unrelated to any Code grounds, and that the respondents were not liable for failing to address another customer's racially-tinged remarks because the applicant had not informed them of the nature of those remarks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her union regarding a refusal to file a grievance in November 2005.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the application being filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay of almost four years was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being the only employee offered an early retirement package during a staff reduction.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on multiple grounds, including failure to disclose a prima facie case, section 45.1 of the Code, and being frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal denied the requests for early dismissal, finding that the prima facie case issue should be raised at a hearing, a negotiated retirement package is not a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, and the frivolous and vexatious provisions are no longer applicable.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer over ten years after his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that pursuing WSIB claims did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay, particularly since the human rights application included allegations of racial discrimination and sought remedies distinct from WSIB benefits.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to all parties.

The respondents attended the hearing, but the applicant failed to appear and did not request an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received proper notice and concluded that she had abandoned her application.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to a significant scheduling conflict and a recent interim decision requiring the production of numerous documents.

The responding party also requested an adjournment due to complications in retaining counsel.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances warranting the adjournment and granted the request.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada for failing to accommodate her in the licensing process.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because the applicant had a pending Application for Judicial Review before the Divisional Court on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the judicial review was scheduled to be heard imminently.

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

The corporate respondent and three personal respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding the corporate respondent accepted liability and the personal respondents' conduct was not central to the allegations.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on the corporate respondent's requests to dismiss part of the application due to a prior settlement and to defer the remainder pending an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider an interim decision granting intervenor status to the Windsor Police Services.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application based on the applicant's stated intention to file a further application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer alleging discrimination in employment.

She also included supplemental forms alleging discrimination by her lawyer, Legal Aid Ontario, and her former spouse, without naming them as respondents in the main application.

The Tribunal held that the supplemental allegations did not comply with the Rules of Procedure and declined to process them as part of the current application, giving the applicant 20 days to file separate, complete applications against those parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file their Responses within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file Responses by a specified extended deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate two human rights applications involving the same parties and employment situation, and to amend the name of a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that the applications be heard together under the current Rules of Procedure and amending the personal respondent's name from Nadia Deeb to Nadjeda Glebova.

The applicant, an employee approaching 65 years of age, filed an application alleging age discrimination because the respondent indicated it would not provide benefit coverage if he continued employment past age 65.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Human Rights Code and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 do not require employers to provide benefits past age 65.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call hearing to hear submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the ground of disability, claiming the respondents denied him benefits during a stress-related absence.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously filed union grievances based on the same facts and issues.

To prevent concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application on its own initiative pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied a request to expedite proceedings in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that under section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

As the refusal to expedite was not a final decision, the request was denied.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision noting the applicant's intention to withdraw and directing him to file a Request to Withdraw, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.