Eric Whist

The personal respondent requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the completion of concurrent criminal proceedings against him for sexual assault with a weapon, arising from the same alleged workplace incident.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the human rights application was broader in scope.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that proceeding concurrently risked inconsistent findings of fact and could jeopardize the personal respondent's Charter right to remain silent in the criminal proceeding.

The applicant's alternative request to proceed against the corporate respondent only was also denied to avoid duplicative proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) raising jurisdictional issues and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of employment services, approximately two and a half years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The self-represented applicant submitted that he was unaware of the issue for a while.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as the applicant raised a potential issue of discoverability which could constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent, leaving the final determination on delay for a later stage.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing and an extension of deadlines for document production, citing difficulties in preparing his case following the death of his former counsel and challenges in retrieving documents.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the death of the applicant's counsel constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the late adjournment request.

The hearing was adjourned to be rescheduled within 12 weeks, and the deadlines for document exchange and filing were extended.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of three grievances.

He argued that the grievance process was delayed and no hearing date had been set.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance process had not concluded.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the grievance process was inactive or unreasonably delayed, and dismissed the request to reactivate the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The Notice of Application sent to the personal respondent was returned to the Tribunal unopened.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to provide a current, complete, and accurate address for the personal respondent within 20 days, or explain why the previously provided address is correct, in accordance with Rule 6.6(b).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, marital status, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB proceeding regarding a workplace injury.

Both parties submitted that the application should not be deferred.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceeding was not identical to the human rights application and that the WSIB proceeding was at a very early stage.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered it to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability six days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference hearing due to a scheduling conflict of their counsel.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued, requiring exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Despite the respondent's consent, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

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

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement containing a full and final release of all claims, including Human Rights Code claims.

The applicant contended she signed the release under duress and without independent legal advice.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and the test for duress, finding that the stress of the settlement process did not amount to coercion of the will.

The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to rely on the release and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after his temporary employment contract was not extended past February 29, 2012.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant signed the release knowing his employment would end on that date and that other employees were being extended.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of medical documents relating to a witness's doctor visits and more detailed witness statements from the respondent.

The Tribunal found the medical documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's claim that the applicant was terminated for performance reasons, ordering their production with unrelated medical information redacted.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide revised witness statements particularizing the alleged performance issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of his personal medical file from the respondent employer.

The applicant alleged he was terminated for absenteeism related to a disability, while the respondent claimed the termination was for non-discriminatory reasons and that no accommodation was requested.

The Tribunal found the medical file arguably relevant to determining what information the respondent had regarding the applicant's medical condition.

The request was granted in part, with the respondent ordered to produce medical file documents from April 1, 2011 onwards.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy after previously finding the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant's back injury for a 38-day period.

The applicant sought $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal awarded $6,000, noting the objective seriousness was mitigated by the short duration and the respondents' subsequent provision of appropriate accommodation.

The Tribunal declined to order future compliance remedies, finding the corporate respondent had already implemented satisfactory human rights policies, training, and return-to-work protocols.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear for the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to services.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant informed the Tribunal that he was unable to return to Canada from Iran due to travel difficulties and requested that his application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a part-time bookkeeper, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her health-related absences following a heart attack, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent maintained that the termination was solely due to the applicant's poor work performance, including significant bookkeeping errors and an inability to provide required financial reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate, ongoing concerns about the applicant's performance and had decided to terminate her employment prior to her heart attack.

The Application was dismissed as the Tribunal concluded the termination was not tainted by discriminatory considerations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, creed, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file hearing documents and witness materials, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, while also pursuing a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal reconsidered an earlier interim decision and determined that it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction under s. 34(11) of the Code, as the civil claim did not explicitly seek human rights remedies.

However, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to housing on the basis of ethnic origin and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a Superior Court of Justice proceeding initiated by the co-operative to terminate the applicant's membership and occupancy rights.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that the court proceeding would consider many of the same facts and issues, and deferral would prevent concurrent proceedings on the same subject matter.