Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed for delay; applicant failed to prove delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately three years after his dismissal, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his mental health condition and ongoing settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting the claim that his disability prevented him from pursuing his rights, noting he had retained counsel and pursued a workers' compensation claim during the delay.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Pelletier v. Nortrax Canada Inc., 2011 HRTO 1968

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to submit additional materials and indicate whether she wished to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Lauren Mizen v. Transcom Worlwide, 2011 HRTO 1961

Ena Chadha

Request to dismiss human rights application for lack of provincial jurisdiction denied.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the organizational respondent, the Royal Canadian Legion, is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that based on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the application.

Speziale v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2011 HRTO 1963

Ena Chadha

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of 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.

Melissa Beaupre v. Colin Little, Marc Murphy and Erik Neilsen, 2011 HRTO 1965

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 27, 2011

Respondents deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision cautioning them of the consequences of failing to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation and are deemed to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application.

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

Roepke v. Accenture Inc., 2011 HRTO 1944

Daryn M. Jefferies

2 cases2011–2012

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 27, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending the resolution of concurrent union grievances on the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the denial of sick leave benefits and a Record of Employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had previously filed union grievances concerning the same facts and issues.

Despite the applicant's concern about a change in union representation, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

Stannie Laws Muir v. Humber River Regional Hospital and Ester Correa, 2011 HRTO 1943

Richard Elia

1 case2011–2011

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 26, 2011

Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to identify new evidence or errors of law.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued the decision was incorrect in law and that new evidence existed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not identified any new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor did she establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1933

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 26, 2011

Request to defer human rights application denied as the related WSIB claim was already closed.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application on the basis that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral, noting that the WSIB claim had been closed since August 2010.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer the application because the WSIB process had concluded and there was no active proceeding or appeal.

The respondents' request to defer was denied.

Razi v. 122164 Canada Limited, 2011 HRTO 1934

Tribunal strikes portions of human rights application barred by a prior full and final release.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by his supervisor.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in November 2008 resolving two grievances, including one for age discrimination.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with allegations of events prior to the November 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application were struck to the extent they related to events preceding the settlement, while the remainder of the application was allowed to proceed.

Willard v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1936

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 25, 2011

Human rights application permitted to proceed because related civil action was withdrawn prior to filing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding based on the same facts.

The applicant provided evidence that the civil action was withdrawn prior to filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application and directed the matter to proceed.

Adine Owieczka v. Staples Canada Inc., 2011 HRTO 1926

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 21, 2011

Tribunal consolidates two human rights applications on consent of all parties.

The respondents in one application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to consolidate their matter with another application involving the same applicant, allegations, and series of events.

The applicant and the respondents in the second application consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, noting that proceeding together would facilitate a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

King v. Intercon Security Limited, 2011 HRTO 1908

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 20, 2011

Human rights application allowed to proceed as it was not plainly out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to provide modified work following an injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing, citing meetings within the one-year period where the respondent allegedly refused to return him to work.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that the application be served on the respondent.

Zelaya v. Braken-Metal Foundry, 2011 HRTO 1900

Ena Chadha

Application dismissed as abandoned after deceased applicant's executor failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but died the following day.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's executor to confirm whether the estate intended to proceed with the application.

When the executor failed to respond within the stipulated 14-day period, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

William Thomson v. John Flaherty, 2011 HRTO 1893

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant's estate failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's Executor to determine if the estate intended to proceed with the application.

After receiving no response to its direction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

William Thomson v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2011 HRTO 1892

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of a related application and civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts based on association.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of another related application, which had already been deferred pending a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions on the deferral request, but the applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

Richard Ulias v. 2225191 Ontario Inc., Lauderdale Point Marina & Resort Inc., James Lewis, George Timpson, Albert Graves and Les Hartle, 2011 HRTO 1884

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant's estate failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's executor to confirm whether the estate intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The executor did not respond within the specified timeframe.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Thomson v. Erlendson, 2011 HRTO 1891

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 18, 2011

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to clarify whether the allegations fell within the Code's definition of record of offences or disability.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions.

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

Jean Mackinnon v. Tigertel Communications Inc., 2011 HRTO 1878

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 17, 2011

Tribunal awards $150 for minor delay and tax error in paying human rights settlement.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $37,000 in general damages by the agreed deadline and by erroneously deducting taxes from the initial payment.

The respondents corrected the tax error and issued the proper payment shortly after the deadline.

The Tribunal found a minor breach of the settlement terms but declined to impose a penalty, noting the respondents' prompt apology and correction.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $150 as compensation for the frustration caused by the delay and the incorrect tax deduction.

Carlos Xitimul v. Marriott Hotels of Canada and Masoud Rashidi, 2011 HRTO 1867

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 13, 2011

Tribunal ordered clarification on whether human rights application is stayed due to respondent employer's receivership.

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

The respondent employer's counsel advised the Tribunal that the corporate entity operating the employer was in receivership and subject to a stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Noting that the receivership order was dated 2006 but the employer was operating in 2009, the Tribunal ordered the respondent employer or Receiver to clarify the current status of the receivership and whether a stay remains in effect.

Markland v. Casa Verde Retirement Residence and Long-Term Care, 2011 HRTO 1856

Ena Chadha