Ena Chadha

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had concurrent workplace grievances covering the same subject matter.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

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

A concurrent workplace grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed by the applicant's union prior to the application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Finding that the grievance process could adequately address the human rights concerns, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on marital status.

A concurrent workplace grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

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

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age-related harassment and discrimination in employment.

He subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his application to include specific details of events occurring after a November 2008 settlement.

The Tribunal found the nature and scope of the proposed amendments unclear and directed the applicant to file specific details of the proposed amendments and supporting submissions before deciding on the request.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision ordering a Response.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the application pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions before a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against a corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

The personal respondent no longer worked for the corporate respondent and could not be served at the provided address.

The applicant requested an order compelling the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's last known address, middle name, and social insurance number.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the last known address and middle name to facilitate delivery, but declined to order disclosure of the social insurance number.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, claiming she was not provided with appropriate modified work and was terminated for failing to meet production quotas.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing appeals before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same facts and issues.

Finding significant overlap between the WSIB proceedings and the human rights allegations, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant, a Middle Eastern Muslim medical doctor, applied for a family medicine residency position and was rejected after interviews on three separate occasions.

He filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and age, claiming the interviewers displayed negative body language and disinterest.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bare allegations of rude behaviour and failed to identify any evidence demonstrating a link between the interviewers' conduct and the protected Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant argued that the WSIB had made a decision confirming his loss of earnings benefits.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting that an appeal was currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the WSIA proceedings were not yet concluded and the request was premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, noting an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the WSIB process.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed the union to file submissions regarding the respondent's request to dismiss or defer.

The applicants, paramedics employed by the City of Toronto, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding uniform policies and accommodation.

The respondents requested deferral of the applications because the applicants had concurrent active grievances dealing with the same factual allegations (payroll issues and letters of reprimand).

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the applications overlapped significantly with the subject matter of the outstanding grievances, which could potentially proceed to arbitration.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the applications pending the conclusion of the grievance processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a respondent who had died prior to the commencement of the application.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on whether the proceeding could continue against the estate or its executors.

By analogy to Rule 9.03(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and with the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the style of cause be amended to identify the executors of the estate as the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his back injury.

Prior to filing their Response, the respondents requested an order for early disclosure of the applicant's complete WSIB file, arguing they could not meaningfully respond without it.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the Application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to know the case to meet, and reiterating the general rule that pleadings must be completed before preliminary requests for disclosure are entertained.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievance process.

The applicant claimed the grievance process was finished but provided no supporting documentation.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings regarding the applicant's accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding the applicant failed to satisfy Rule 14 by not providing evidence that the grievance process had concluded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The reconsideration request was filed five months late.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ignorance of the law did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, or other factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury.

The respondent requested an order permitting access to the applicant's occupational health and WSIB records to prepare its Response, citing potential conflicts with privacy legislation.

The Tribunal found the health files arguably relevant but limited disclosure to records from January 2009 onwards, corresponding to the timeframe of the disputed job competition.

The respondent was granted access to the limited files and a 35-day extension to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university's medical residency program.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent municipality's rental housing licensing by-law discriminated against low-density rental housing by imposing higher costs than for other types of housing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not specify a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant acknowledged the complaint was novel and did not fall within the Code's enumerated grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness outside the protected grounds.