Eric Whist

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing its subject matter was substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the previous complaint dealt with an incident on December 1, 2007, while the current application dealt exclusively with a separate incident on January 30, 2008.

As the two matters involved mutually exclusive incidents occurring at different times, the Tribunal concluded they did not share substantially the same subject matter and dismissed the respondents' request.

The applicant failed to respond to a previous interim decision requiring her to provide current contact information and confirm her intention to proceed with the application.

As no correspondence was received from the applicant, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it did not relate to a Code violation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the merit of the application should be determined at an oral hearing.

However, noting that the Tribunal had been unable to contact the applicant and that mail had been returned, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide current contact information and confirm her intention to proceed by April 14, 2009, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final 10-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to withdraw from participation in the complainant's human rights hearing.

Neither the complainant nor the respondents filed a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the Commission's request to withdraw without imposing transitional conditions, noting the Commission had already disclosed all relevant documents.

The Tribunal also provided the unrepresented complainant an opportunity to request an adjournment of the upcoming hearing if needed.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to delays in the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and the application were based on the same facts and issues regarding the termination of short-term disability benefits upon layoff.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required time, citing military service and lack of computer access, but failed to meet an extended deadline he agreed to.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to file a response under Rule 5.5 and directed him to file a response by April 8, 2009, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The complainant alleged that her employer terminated her in reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and discriminated against her based on sex (pregnancy).

The Tribunal found that a release signed in a prior settlement precluded consideration of alleged reprisals occurring before the settlement.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination, which occurred three weeks after the settlement, was a deliberate act of reprisal for her earlier complaint.

The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to establish sex discrimination.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in general damages and $42,466.79 in restitution for lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.

The complainant filed a human rights application alleging that her former employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the complainant had also filed a grievance with her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was still in progress and could proceed to arbitration before an independent arbitrator with the authority to decide on the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and age after being terminated for refusing to work evenings and Saturdays for religious reasons.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code, finding that the civil action did not seek remedies for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the two proceedings dealt with different legal theories and the civil action was not close to resolution.

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

The respondents failed to file their Response by the required deadline.

Following an earlier interim decision directing the respondents to file their Response and explain the delay, the respondents filed the Response, citing counsel error.

The Tribunal accepted the late Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent school board.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a final deadline would result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation, potentially deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that arbitrators lack expertise in human rights issues and cannot provide adequate remedies.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that deferral is generally appropriate where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts.

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

The respondents requested a deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB proceedings concerned financial compensation for the injury and did not address the central human rights issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal also declined to strike medical documents attached to the Response and portions of the applicant's Reply, leaving those evidentiary issues for the hearing.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request, but received none.

Noting that the applicant may not have received the prior decision in time, the Tribunal issued an interim decision extending the deadline for the applicant to provide submissions by 14 days.

The applicant, a manager in a provincial detention centre, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of physical disability regarding a merit increase.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already commenced a related complaint under the Public Service of Ontario Act based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that the Public Service Grievance Board has the authority to address Code-related issues and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granting them a final extension to November 24, 2008, to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral and objected to the respondent's disclosure of her confidential medical documents.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the deferral request and the status of the WSIB/WSIAT proceeding before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted them a final extension to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in job competitions in 1995 and 1996, and naming multiple respondents including government ministries, the OLRB, the Ombudsman, and OPSEU for their subsequent handling of his complaints.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing a preliminary hearing to address jurisdictional issues, including whether the application is barred by previous Commission complaints, the one-year time limit, the existence of other proceedings, and the lack of specific allegations of discrimination against several respondents.