Eric Whist

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The respondent submitted that the application should be deferred.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the Nova Scotia proceeding to prevent inconsistent decisions.

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

After the Tribunal directed a summary hearing, the applicant requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code, arguing he had not received requested evidence and alleging bias by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an inquiry is not a substitute for the normal disclosure process and that allegations of bias do not constitute grounds for ordering an inquiry to obtain evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a men's soccer league subjected him to reprisal by suspending and fining him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege that the reprisal was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as it does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness unrelated to Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her job was terminated while she was off sick.

The respondent was a First Nations entity, and the employment involved the provision of educational services on a First Nations reserve.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the conclusion of related WSIAT proceedings.

The respondent opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting it was filed within the required 60-day period.

The Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss for delay to a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application was filed within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code.

The respondent school board requested an order compelling the applicant's next friend to consent to the disclosure of the applicant's Ontario School Record (OSR) to defend against allegations of discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal found the OSR documents from the relevant school years to be arguably relevant.

Following Tribunal jurisprudence, the adjudicator directed the applicant's next friend to provide written consent within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as an abuse of process or abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability against his employer, McMaster University, and several individuals.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individuals because the university accepted vicarious liability and their actions were not the central focus.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the applicant's direct supervisor, as the allegations against him included harassment and were central to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, and disability following his termination.

He also alleged his union failed to advance his grievance diligently.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ongoing grievance.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent employer ceased providing modified work after the WSIB determined his ongoing shoulder injury was not work-related.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB proceeding would determine compensability of the injury, whereas the human rights application specifically alleged discrimination regarding the failure to provide modified work, making them distinct proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil action did not seek damages for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the application was not barred by section 34(11) of the Code and was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent, a psychologist, made a racist comment to her during their work together.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred, as the applicant had also filed a concurrent complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario regarding the same comment.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding was ongoing and had not yet appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the College's proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), the Tribunal held a case conference to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name, directed the applicant to file a formal request for corporate ownership documents, and noted the applicant's withdrawal of a bifurcation request.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce Records of Employment for comparable employees with low sales figures, ordered the applicant to produce a birth certificate and medical records, and limited the scope of the respondent's witnesses' testimony to the respondent's maternity leave policies rather than their personal experiences.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only determined that the applicant's injury was not work-related and did not address whether the respondent infringed the applicant's rights by refusing to return him to work and accommodate his disability.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, reprisal, and breach of settlement against his employer, his union, and his supervisor.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate four active applications, whether some allegations were out of time, and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal ordered the four applications to be consolidated and proceed together to a one-day hearing, where the issues of delay and vexatious litigant status would also be addressed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, marital status, and age.

After initially failing to provide specific allegations, the applicant submitted that she was subjected to unwanted sexual advances and verbal sexual harassment before resigning.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, noting that the applicant had signed Minutes of Settlement containing a release of claims under the Code, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether allowing the Application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to include allegations related to the recent termination of his employment.

The applicant argued the termination was a continuation of the reprisal alleged in the original application.

The respondents did not oppose the request but denied the new allegations were related to the original ones.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that dealing with all issues in a single application would be efficient, the new events were recent, and the respondents would not be prejudiced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal, stemming from workplace health and safety concerns and a subsequent injury diagnosis.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code and was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as the applicant's concerns related to occupational health and safety rather than differential treatment based on a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The respondent argued the adjudicator placed undue weight on ambiguous WSIB case manager notes when assessing credibility regarding whether the applicant was forced to work beyond his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue the case and challenge factual findings, which does not meet the test for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The adjudicator maintained that the WSIB notes corroborated the applicant's testimony.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed five of his six allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator applied the wrong legal test for the duty to accommodate and erred in finding the respondent's response to harassment allegations reasonable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that there were other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent, Martin Stampfli, from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant took no position.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent, McMaster University, had expressly assumed vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling reason to proceed against the individual and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.