Eric Whist

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant provided an OLRB decision demonstrating that those proceedings had concluded.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed the respondents to file their responses.

The respondent requested the removal of a named personal respondent and the dismissal of the application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to proceed against him individually as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for his actions.

Regarding the request to dismiss for delay, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to hear submissions and evidence on whether the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failing to comply with a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) requiring the filing of pre-hearing documents.

The applicant argued she did not receive the CAD in a timely manner because she was away from her mailing address.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the CAD was properly served to the mailing address provided by the applicant, and that she likely had notice of the CAD through email correspondence but failed to contact the Tribunal.

The respondent requested an order prohibiting the applicant from presenting evidence because the applicant failed to deliver a witness list and witness statements 45 days before the hearing, as required by Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal declined to make the requested order at this time, instead directing the applicant to immediately provide the required witness information by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also agreed to hear the respondent's preliminary objections at the upcoming hearing.

The corporate respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation requested an order for the production of documents from a non-party, the City of Windsor.

The requested documents related to a municipal investigation into the applicant's complaint about the same incident.

The Tribunal found the documents to be arguably relevant and ordered the City of Windsor to produce them, subject to the right to redact personal information.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code naming a corporate respondent and six individual respondents.

The Tribunal lacked contact information for one individual respondent, who was no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide the former employee's last known address within 14 days so that notice of the application could be delivered.

The self-represented applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision 202 days after it was issued, well beyond the 30-day limit.

The applicant argued he did not appreciate the ramifications of the decision regarding the evidence he could call at his upcoming hearing on reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the explanation for the delay unpersuasive and noting that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated following her disclosure of pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) who dismissed the applicant's prior claim under the Employment Standards Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Figliola, the Tribunal found that the ESO proceeding dealt with essentially the same legal issues and provided the applicant an opportunity to know and meet the case against her.

The Tribunal declined to review the procedural or substantive correctness of the ESO's decision, noting the applicant's proper recourse was an appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add a police officer and the Hamilton Police Services as respondents, to compel the lifting of a trespass notice preventing his access to a courthouse, and to order the production of original notes and policy documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests in their entirety, finding them decidedly untimely as they were made less than a month before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had long known of the police involvement and that he would have the opportunity to cross-examine the officer at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of the applicant's civil action in the Superior Court of Justice, which involved identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the civil action would involve consideration of the principal allegations in the application and ordered that the application be deferred.

The applicant requested a second extension of time to file his witness list, witness statements, and documents for an upcoming hearing, citing difficulties in obtaining assistance from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the proximity of the hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting that while the applicant had delayed, the respondent had also failed to meet its own disclosure requirements.

Both parties were ordered to file their materials by the new deadline.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 based on the same allegations.

Finding that the issues and factual circumstances were similar and that there was potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

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 or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the institutional respondent's handling of her internal complaint constituted further acts of discrimination and reprisal, making her application timely.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that it be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal while living at a city-administered family shelter.

The corporate respondent, the City of Ottawa, requested the removal of four personal respondents (city staff).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals since the City accepted responsibility for defending the allegations.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to file an amended Application as previously directed, warning that this could limit his ability to present evidence at the hearing, and narrowed the grounds to disability and reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, following his termination after taking time off for physiotherapy for a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing the termination was for failing to follow time-off procedures.

The Tribunal found there were disputed facts requiring evidence and credibility determinations, and declined to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested the removal of a named personal respondent, which the applicant consented to, and the Tribunal granted the request.

The Waterloo Regional Police Association (WRPA), the applicant's union, requested intervenor status.

The applicant opposed the intervention, alleging the WRPA had failed to assist him and discriminated against him by refusing legal funding.

The Tribunal granted the WRPA's request to intervene, finding that a union typically has a substantial interest in a member's human rights application and that the applicant's allegations against the union did not constitute exceptional circumstances to deny intervention.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested to defer the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, pending a proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found a substantive overlap between the issues raised in the application and the GSB proceeding, specifically regarding whether the position offered by the respondent accommodated the applicant's medical restrictions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal stating she would not participate because the respondent had a resource advantage.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.