Ena Chadha

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against his former employer, a corporate respondent.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the business as an individual respondent, arguing that the owner was personally involved in the alleged discriminatory conduct and was attempting to sell the business.

The corporate respondent opposed the request.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found compelling reasons to add the owner as a respondent, noting his direct involvement in the allegations and concerns about the collectability of potential financial remedies if the business were sold.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal, the applicant sought disclosure of a proposed respondent's cellular phone text messages.

The proposed respondent consented to the disclosure and requested an order directing his cellular service provider to produce the call detail records.

The Tribunal ordered the service provider to produce the records for the specified date, with the proposed respondent to bear the administrative costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex, primarily relating to pay discrepancies and over-deductions between 2002 and 2007.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing in writing to determine preliminary issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations prior to June 2008 were out of time and that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

For the timely allegations from June 2008 onwards, the Tribunal dismissed them for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged pay issues to any Code-protected grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability by her employer.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the allegations relating to events prior to May 2011 as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the earlier events did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Code due to significant temporal gaps.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2), as pursuing other avenues of redress does not justify a delay in filing a human rights application.

The allegations prior to May 2011 were dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, while the timely allegation regarding the termination of employment was permitted to continue.

The applicant sought to add her former supervisor, Barbara Schacher, as an individual respondent to her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the allegations related to standard management functions and post-termination conduct outside the employment context.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations against the proposed respondent were central to the application and could support a finding of a Code violation.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of Law Society discipline proceedings.

The applicant argued that the Law Society hearing had completed, although no decision had been issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no material change in circumstances, as the Law Society process remains outstanding until a decision is rendered and all appeals or reviews are finally determined.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal against her former employer and its law firm.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the law firm, noting that the Tribunal generally lacks jurisdiction over the conduct of a lawyer representing an opposing party in another legal proceeding.

The applicant failed to file written submissions on the jurisdictional issue by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the law firm as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial profiling and a privacy breach by police officers during a traffic stop.

The respondents requested an order requiring the Ministry of Transportation to confirm the identity of the registered owner of the vehicle the applicant was driving.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to first seek the consent of the individual identified by the applicant as the owner, and permitted them to renew their request for an order if consent could not be obtained.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated, filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination regarding the respondent's recommendation to revoke her teaching certificate.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance concerning her termination and alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration process, noting the overlapping issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including a poisoned work environment and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the issues were identical and that the respondent should not be forced to defend itself in parallel proceedings, particularly given an ongoing professional standards investigation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondents refused to transfer his seniority to a new position following a workplace injury.

The respondents sought an extension of time to file their Responses and requested early disclosure of the applicant's occupational health and WSIB files to prepare their defence.

The Tribunal granted limited disclosure of the occupational health files from 2010 onwards, finding them arguably relevant to the seniority transfer issue, but denied disclosure of the WSIB files pending further submissions on statutory privilege.

The respondents were granted an extension of time to file their Responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent's counsel subsequently advised the Tribunal that she was ceasing to act because the respondent had entered CCAA proceedings, sold its assets, and no longer carried on business.

The Tribunal directed the respondent's former counsel to provide updated contact information for the respondent in accordance with the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with his application as an unsecured creditor, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and unions, relating to events dating back to 1998 and a 2004 arbitration.

The applicant claimed the application was timely because she received financial records in September 2012 confirming no interpreter was paid for during the 2004 arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of confirming documents did not constitute a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the allegations were also the subject of two ongoing grievances proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievances, noting that deferral is generally appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant's sister filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to be appointed as litigation guardian for the applicant, who has a developmental disability.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the sister had not been appointed by a court and questioning her involvement in the applicant's care.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to appoint a litigation guardian and that a court appointment is not necessary.

The Tribunal found that the sister may act as litigation guardian, subject to filing the required Form 4B declaration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants requested to reactivate their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending the resolution of related union grievances.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the applications should be dismissed for delay, abuse of process, and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request as the grievance processes had concluded, but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the respondents' preliminary objections regarding delay, section 45.1 of the Code, abuse of process, and reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate three previously deferred human rights applications and filed a new application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the new application pending the resolution of outstanding grievance arbitrations.

The respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate and deferred the new application, finding that the grievance arbitration process was ongoing and deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings.

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

The Tribunal previously granted the union intervener status and raised the issue of deferring the application because an outstanding grievance regarding the alleged delay in accommodation was proceeding to arbitration.

As no party filed submissions objecting to the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent facility regarding restrictions placed on him when visiting his father.

The restrictions were imposed at the behest of the applicant's siblings, who held power of attorney.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction because the allegations arose from a family dispute rather than Code-protected grounds, and the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, sex, and pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had commenced a concurrent reprisal claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was currently under review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim and the human rights application raised similar issues and overlapping facts regarding pregnancy discrimination.

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