D. Alan Whyte

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and a poisoned work environment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the remedies sought in the grievance and the application were sufficiently related to indicate a commonality of issues.

Consistent with its normal approach to avoid simultaneous proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed the production of the applicant's psychiatric clinical notes.

The applicant objected to producing eight notes, claiming they were irrelevant or protected by common law privilege under the Supreme Court's decision in Ryan.

The Tribunal found the notes arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of acute stress and anxiety resulting from alleged workplace discrimination.

Applying the Ryan test, the Tribunal balanced the applicant's privacy interests with the respondents' right to disclosure, ordering the production of the notes with appropriate redactions for non-essential material concerning the litigation process.

The parties filed Requests for Order During Proceeding regarding the removal of the individual respondent and the production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that her conduct was central to the applicant's reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her resume, OISE application, and mental health records from August 2010 to August 2011.

The respondents were ordered to produce the applicant's harassment complaint from the 2010/2011 school year.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability five days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to a mental health condition that prevented earlier filing.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that the disability was so debilitating as to prevent the applicant from pursuing his rights, noting he was able to pursue employment insurance and attend college during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin after being banned from a Video Plus store that operated as a Sears catalogue agent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant claimed he was denied service because of his Polish surname, while the respondent maintained he was banned due to abusive behaviour towards an employee.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the denial of service to a prohibited ground and dismissed the application.

Following an inquiry into the Belleville Police Force, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services found that the Deputy Chief was incapable of performing his duties satisfactorily.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings but remitted the matter of penalty to the Commission to allow the Deputy Chief to make submissions.

After considering the submissions, the Commission ordered that the Deputy Chief be demoted to the rank of Inspector for a minimum of two years and undergo practical instruction to improve his oral communication skills.