Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 30, 2012

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance regarding the same underlying facts.

As neither party filed submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

April Brown v. St. Michael Hospital, 2012 HRTO 2065

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to a preliminary notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

David Molnar v. Sinclair Computer Forms, 2012 HRTO 2051

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over federally-regulated CN but retains jurisdiction over provincially-regulated Bombardier regarding accommodation.

The applicant, a commuter train operator employed by Bombardier, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex after she was banned from CN rail lines following a safety infraction.

CN requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated undertaking.

Bombardier requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved by a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against CN, finding its control over rail tracks falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over Bombardier, finding its commuter rail operations are provincially regulated.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding discipline and termination under section 45.1, but allowed the allegations regarding Bombardier's ongoing failure to accommodate the applicant on non-CN lines to proceed.

Karen Nicholson v. Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. and CN National Railway Company, 2012 HRTO 2062

Lisa Washington-Watts

2 cases2012–2013

Ena Chadha

Request to amend remedial claims granted; request for early disclosure denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

She brought a request for an order during proceedings to amend her remedial claims and to compel early disclosure of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the respondents did not oppose it and there was no prejudice.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for early disclosure as premature, finding no reason to depart from the standard timelines set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Vilner v. Zale Canada Co., 2012 HRTO 2048

Ena Chadha

Request to defer human rights application pending criminal appeal denied due to uncertain timelines.

The personal respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending his appeal of a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing stress and delay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that since the criminal trial was complete, the respondent's participation in the Tribunal process would not prejudice the criminal proceedings.

Given the uncertain timelines of the appeal, deferral was not appropriate.

C.K. v. C[...] Inc., 2012 HRTO 2061

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Esmail Aghdasi v. Sanders Steel Inc., 2012 HRTO 2064

Claudia Scherman

8 cases2009–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 26, 2012

Request for Tribunal-ordered inquiry denied as applicant provided no evidence of potential witness tampering.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal.

She subsequently requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to gather witness evidence, arguing it was necessary to prevent the respondent from pressuring potential witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence to support the applicant's claims of potential duress or lost evidence, and noting that an inquiry is not a substitute for the usual production process.

Koskowsky v. Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, 2012 HRTO 2050

Adrienne Couto

9 cases2009–2016

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance arbitration on the same facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the grounds of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had concurrent grievances proceeding to arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board based on the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and his union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

Jatinder Khaira v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 2035

Jessica Kearsley

1 case2012–2012

Ena Chadha

Police association granted intervenor status in employees' human rights applications against police services board.

The Toronto Police Association filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking intervenor status in two consolidated human rights applications brought by employees against the Toronto Police Services Board.

Neither the applicants nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its standard practice to grant intervenor status to a bargaining agent in applications alleging discrimination in employment, absent exceptional circumstances.

Robert v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 2045

Kristin Taylor

22 cases1995–2018

Ena Chadha

Three human rights applications alleging racial discrimination against the same employer consolidated due to common issues.

The applicants in three separate human rights applications against the same corporate respondent and overlapping individual respondents sought to have their applications consolidated.

The respondents opposed consolidation, arguing it would not avoid delay and raised concerns about potential collusion among the applicants.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the applications shared significant common issues of fact and law, including allegations of a poisoned work environment and racial discrimination during a similar timeframe.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be consolidated to ensure efficient use of resources and convenience for witnesses.

Nuur v. Chubb Edwards, 2012 HRTO 2040

Patricia Piccolo

1 case2012–2012

Mathew Fisher

1 case2012–2012

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Employment Standards claim arising from same facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex and family status, specifically related to her pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim alleging constructive dismissal due to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards claim.

Finding that the two proceedings arose from the same factual circumstances and raised overlapping legal issues and potential remedies, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

Neves v. The Abacus Resource Group Inc., 2012 HRTO 2044

Tracy A. Kay

5 cases2003–2012

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2012

Deferred human rights application reactivated on consent following conclusion of related Small Claims Court action.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court action.

The respondent confirmed the civil action had concluded and did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the matter to mediation.

Mark Thomas v. 381883 Ontario Ltd. o/a 100 Jameson Avenue Apartments, 2012 HRTO 2001

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2012

Human rights application allowed to proceed past preliminary stage except for record of offences ground.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, association, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the initial application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, which detailed allegations of age and ethnic origin discrimination, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, except for the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed on the remaining grounds.

Muqtada Qureshi v. Islamic Foundation of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 2003

Lucy Siraco

28 cases2009–2016

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 18, 2012

Application reactivated following related arbitration; teleconference scheduled to hear motion to dismiss for abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment due to his association with a co-worker who raised human rights concerns.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a motion to dismiss in a related grievance arbitration.

Following the issuance of an interim award in the arbitration regarding breaches of confidentiality, the applicant requested reactivation.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a teleconference to hear the respondents' motion to dismiss or strike parts of the application on the basis of abuse of process related to the use of confidential information.

Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 1982

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 17, 2012

Human rights application held in abeyance pending release of decision in related prior application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of family and marital status.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a prior application with overlapping facts and legal issues currently under reserve.

The Tribunal directed that the current application be held in abeyance pending the release of the decision in the first application to avoid duplication of processes and relitigation of matters.

Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto, 2012 HRTO 1972

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 16, 2012

Reconsideration request denied; applicant failed to establish good faith for delay in filing application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established case law, that he did not receive proper notice, and that his mental health issues justified the delay in good faith.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with jurisprudence, no prejudice from the notice issue, and insufficient medical evidence to prove his condition prevented him from filing on time.

Ross v. Simcoe County District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1960

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 15, 2012

Human rights application against police dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over 'receipt of public assistance' ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the police on the basis of race, colour, family status, marital status, and receipt of public assistance, claiming she was falsely charged with public mischief because she is poor.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the ground of 'receipt of public assistance' only applies to housing under section 2 of the Code, and the applicant failed to explain how the alleged false charges were connected to any other protected ground.

Maria Rots v. Toronto City Police 11 Division, 2012 HRTO 1945

Robert W. Scriven

36 cases2012–2026

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 11, 2012

Individual respondent removed from human rights application where corporate respondent accepted liability.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, an owner of the corporate respondent, as a party to the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted liability for the individual respondent's alleged conduct and the applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent and granted the request to remove him as a party.

Chaudhary v. 2063849 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 1938

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 9, 2012

Application reactivated; withdrawn grievance does not justify dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after her union withdrew her grievance without prejudice or precedent.

The respondents opposed reactivation and sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance process appropriately dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal found that a withdrawn grievance does not constitute a proceeding that dealt with the substance of the application.

The request to reactivate was granted and the request to dismiss was denied.

Daoust v. Sudbury Regional Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1868

Ena Chadha