Ena Chadha

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing on the basis of disability, over two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay and the lack of apparent reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The applicant attributed the delay to emotional stress but provided no medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation and failed to allege facts constituting a reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal based on disability.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondent and to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue against him as the corporate respondent accepted liability for his conduct.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss the application, directing that it may be raised as a preliminary issue at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability following a workplace injury, culminating in his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process or deferred due to an ongoing WSIB appeal, and that certain allegations be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal denied the requests to dismiss, finding that the application raised distinct human rights issues and that the allegations constituted a series of incidents.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal process due to overlapping factual issues and potential remedies.

Three applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against the same respondents.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated or heard together.

Two of the applicants also requested to amend their applications to include a new reprisal allegation regarding the termination of their employment.

The Tribunal ordered that the three applications be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, and granted the requests to amend the applications as there was no apparent prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy.

The applicant's counsel withdrew because she could not locate the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide current contact information and advise of her intentions, warning that failure to do so would result in the applications being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on his association with another employee who had raised human rights concerns.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing it relied on confidential information improperly obtained from the other employee's ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration involved overlapping preliminary legal and factual issues regarding confidentiality breaches.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitrator's hearing on the motion to dismiss.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

The applicant provided a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision denying his claim for loss of earnings benefits and permanent impairment.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application as the issues were no longer being considered by the WSIB.

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 was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and harassment by the respondent condominium corporation, which required residents to remove weather stripping from their doors.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's concerns regarding safety and arbitrary interference did not relate to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code, nor were they linked to any prohibited ground of discrimination.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene, noting it had filed a grievance on behalf of the applicant regarding the same failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, as it is the exclusive bargaining agent.

With the agreement of the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his son's education.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) sought intervenor status to protect the interests of its teacher members, who were the subject of the allegations.

The respondents consented to the intervention, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal granted ETFO intervenor status, finding that it had a significant interest in the allegations, could provide a unique perspective, and its participation would not unduly delay the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the WSIB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding the WSIB did not consider the duty to accommodate under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the Union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance arbitration.

The applicant, a bus driver, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race in employment against OC Transpo.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that it is a federally regulated inter-provincial transportation business.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that OC Transpo falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction and that the applicant had abandoned the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and inadequate care by the personal respondent.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a similar complaint filed by the applicant with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the College complaint was only at the initial investigation stage and did not include the respondent Hospital as a party.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their human rights application to add the ground of disability and increase the claim for general damages.

The respondent consented to the amendments, subject to the applicant providing further particulars and the respondent having an opportunity to file an amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the addition of the disability ground did not raise new facts distinct from the original narrative, and issued directions for the filing of particulars and an amended response.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondent for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and misrepresentation, which included allegations of human rights violations and sought related damages.

The Tribunal found that the application and the civil claim were based on the same facts and sought similar remedies.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicate proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant's union, the United Steelworkers Local 9197, filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it had relevant information and its interests could be affected by any remedy.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its standard practice of granting intervention status to a bargaining agent in employment discrimination cases absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also issued directions regarding document disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed approximately 15 months after the last alleged incident, or alternatively deferred pending a union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the status of the grievance and whether the alleged discrimination was continuing were unclear.

The Tribunal directed a half-day hearing to receive evidence and submissions on whether the application is outside its jurisdiction due to delay or should be deferred.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a school board, police services board, and the Crown.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications and deferred jurisdictional issues, including prosecutorial immunity, to a later stage.

The Crown requested that the Tribunal reconsider this decision on its own initiative and sought directions on filing a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) regarding the jurisdictional issues prior to mediation.

The applicants also requested anonymization of their identities.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its previous decision, granted the request to anonymize the applicants' names to protect the minor child, and directed that the Crown may file its RFOP after the scheduled mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a learning disability, specifically regarding a lay-off and subsequent failure to accommodate.

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 Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as ongoing accommodation discussions could constitute a continuing breach.

The Tribunal directed the application to be served on the respondents and requested submissions on whether the matter should be deferred pending a concurrent union grievance.