Eric Whist

The applicant, a teacher, filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal and discrimination regarding his teaching timetable assigned in June 2012, and requested related document production.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new allegations were substantial, occurred two years after the original events, and would broaden the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal also found that allowing the amendment less than two months before the scheduled hearing would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate her when it required her to return to work despite medical documentation supporting a continued absence.

The Tribunal found that the respondent met both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate.

The respondent had proposed a reasonable graduated return to work plan based on the applicant's medical restrictions and provided an appeal mechanism for short-term disability benefits, ultimately leading to a successful return to work.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

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 and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-compliance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of age, disability, and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent attended the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received timely and proper notice.

Due to the applicant's non-attendance, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, an assistant store manager, alleged discrimination based on family status, disability, and reprisal after being accused of taking store merchandise.

The applicant claimed the loss prevention representative targeted her because she was a single mother.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the family status and reprisal claims required findings of fact and credibility, allowing them to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the disability claim, as the applicant alleged the respondents' actions caused her illness, rather than alleging she was treated differently because of a disability.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated due to pregnancy, requested the production of documents from the respondent, including sales performance data of other employees, policies, and internal correspondence.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that poor performance was a pretext for her dismissal.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide the last known contact information of the manager who terminated the applicant's employment.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2012, after being added as a respondent to a human rights application less than three months prior.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the short timeframe did not afford the Ministry an adequate opportunity to prepare, file its response, and allow the applicant to file a reply.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant, an Aboriginal man, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent Children's Aid Society after a family service worker asked him if he had been drinking during a telephone call.

The applicant claimed the question was racially offensive and that the respondent subsequently limited his email correspondence in reprisal for his complaints.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the worker's question was reasonably based on the applicant slurring his words and her child protection mandate.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discriminatory treatment or reprisal, noting that the decision to limit the applicant's emails was made prior to the incident in question.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, and reprisal for filing a complaint.

The applicant, an order picker, suffered a back injury and required modified duties.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in its duty to accommodate the applicant in April and May 2007 by requiring him to perform tasks beyond his medical restrictions.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of harassment, failure to investigate, and failure to accommodate in June 2007 and thereafter.

The Tribunal also found that the termination of the applicant's employment was not a reprisal, but rather the result of his unreasonable refusal to accept a suitable modified position on the afternoon shift.

The hearing was bifurcated, and the matter was directed to proceed to a remedy hearing for the established Code violation.

The applicant requested a second adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he was out of the country caring for his mother, who had breast cancer.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to participate in the hearing process to date.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances warranted an adjournment, despite his failure to provide requested medical evidence, noting communication issues in delivering the previous interim decision.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was directed to provide alternative dates for 2012.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a WSIB appeal regarding his workplace injury and accommodation.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part but returned issues of fitness for work and availability of alternate duties to the WSIB operating area for further enquiry.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding that proceeding concurrently with the WSIB's ongoing enquiries could lead to conflicting findings and decisions.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in respect of goods, services, and facilities on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to lack specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant did not respond to the NOID.

However, the Tribunal found that it was not 'plain and obvious' that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be served on the respondents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the employment relationship is federally regulated, as the applicant provided security services at an airport.

The Tribunal found that it lacked sufficient factual information regarding the applicant's specific job duties and their connection to the core federal undertaking of aeronautics to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The request to dismiss was denied at this stage, and the respondent was directed to file a response to the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the social area of contracts under section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents had claimed in their responses that the applicant was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the lack of new factual allegations, and the absence of prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request to amend the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific act of discrimination committed by the respondent.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, which also failed to describe any incident involving the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and marital status.

The applicant and the respondent both requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration process arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

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

She brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Director of Operations as an individual respondent, alleging he made the decision to terminate her.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found that while a finding of discrimination could be made against the individual, the corporate respondent took the position that he was acting within his mandated responsibilities.

The Tribunal concluded it was not necessary for the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of the application to add the individual respondent and denied the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the resolution of the applicant's appeal of an Ontario Review Board decision to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant filed a response to the deferral decision, which the Tribunal interpreted as a potential request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that an interim decision deferring an application is not a final decision and therefore cannot be reconsidered under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that he was out of the country caring for his elderly mother.

The request was made well beyond the 14-day period following the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances due to the lack of particulars regarding his mother's health and his need to care for her.

The applicant was given seven days to submit a further request with evidence, failing which he must confirm his attendance and comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules or face dismissal for abandonment.

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

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted as there were no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also noted that both the applicant and respondents failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, statements, and documents.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the required materials within 7 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned or the respondents being barred from calling witnesses.