Ena Chadha

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding workplace grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability against his former employer, an adult entertainment establishment.

The applicant brought requests to consolidate the applications and for an interim remedy of $1,500 per month for lost wages, alleging constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to provide signed declarations as required by the Rules and failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the extraordinary relief.

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

The respondent requested that the first paragraph of the application be struck as untimely and barred by a previous settlement, and that the remainder of the application be deferred pending an ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal struck the first paragraph pursuant to section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code and for delay.

The remainder of the application was deferred on consent pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had not yet received a pardon for her criminal conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the Human Rights Code definition of 'record of offences' only protects convictions for which a pardon has been granted.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a settlement from a previous human rights application.

The applicant failed to identify any specific terms of the settlement that were breached, instead attempting to re-litigate previous claims and expressing dissatisfaction with the settlement amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no legal basis to set aside the settlement or enforce unspecified terms.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the allegations did not appear to fall within the Code's definition of record of offences.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant clarifying allegations of harassment, unfair dismissal, and reprisal following a return from long-term disability, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and a poisoned work environment based on race and colour.

The respondent employer and the intervenor union requested that the application be deferred because the parties had previously entered into a binding settlement before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) regarding the same workplace circumstances, and the GSB Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues arising from the settlement.

The Tribunal found sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance settlement, and deferred the application pending the completion of proceedings before the GSB to avoid parallel proceedings.

The applicant, a parent with a communication disability, filed a human rights application against the school board alleging discrimination for refusing to allow email as a regular means of communication with teachers.

The applicant brought a request to add the Ministry of Education and the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) as respondents, arguing they were necessary to achieve a public interest remedy regarding a formal email policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations of Code violations against the proposed respondents and concluding their addition would unfairly complicate the proceeding.

ETFO was granted affected person status.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing related grievance arbitration based on the same facts.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, inconsistent findings, and duplication of resources.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as out of time.

The original application alleged discriminatory denial of a criminal trial transcript from 2001.

The applicant argued that a recent Ontario Review Board disposition constituted new evidence and that he was denied an oral hearing on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination did not extend the limitation period, and that the Tribunal was permitted to determine jurisdictional issues based solely on written submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly requested delays, citing ill health and the need to secure legal representation.

The Tribunal issued multiple requests for the applicant to provide specific details regarding her accommodation needs and medical restrictions, which she failed to provide.

Noting that the application had been stalled since 2009 and that the applicant had been able to generate significant correspondence on other matters, the Tribunal declined to hold the application in abeyance.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide medical confirmation of her accommodation needs within 14 days, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned, and set a schedule for submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss for delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction.

After receiving additional submissions from the applicant detailing alleged gender and age discrimination, as well as reprisal for reporting concerns to human resources, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to amend his human rights application to include allegations of discrimination and harassment from 2010.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the applicant provided no explanation for failing to include the 2010 allegations in his original application and that the allegations were outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, noting that his conduct did not rise to the level of an abuse of process, though the respondent could raise the issue again at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the employer failed to accommodate her workplace injury and forced her to retire early, and that the union failed to provide proper representation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had ongoing WSIB appeals regarding the same injury.

Finding a significant overlap in issues and remedies between the WSIB process and the human rights application, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate and termination of employment.

The respondent requested that the applications be deferred pending the resolution of the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal overlap between the Code-related issues and the WSIB appeal, which focused on suitable alternate work and learning disabilities.

The Tribunal also ordered the two applications to be consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury and terminated her employment while on sick leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to a potential delay in filing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the parties were involved in ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings dealing with the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceedings overlapped significantly with the human rights application and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination and reprisal by the corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as duplicative of previous applications and that the personal respondent be removed.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding the reprisal allegations distinct from the previous applications.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, as she was acting in the course of her employment and the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer and instead ordered the application consolidated with the applicant's previous applications.

The applicant alleged that the Law Society of Upper Canada discriminated and reprised against her on the basis of disability by requiring additional articling and a good character review during her licensing process.

The Law Society requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The applicant also requested to add the University of Windsor as a respondent regarding her official transcript.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the University, finding the allegations too remote and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Law Society, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the Law Society's actions to the applicant's disability or an intention to reprise.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant with respect to the University and her official transcript, requiring her to seek leave before filing future applications on this issue.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application and add his union as a respondent over two years after the initial filing.

The respondents and the union opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the closure of the workplace and the union's operations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it untimely and prejudicial, as it would unduly broaden the scope of the application shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure and production of employment contracts from the respondent prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, parties are not required to exchange arguably relevant documents until 21 days after the Notice of Hearing is issued.