Ena Chadha

Deferred human rights application reactivated after applicant confirmed withdrawal of workplace grievance.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of his workplace grievance.

After the applicant provided written confirmation from his union that the grievance had been withdrawn, the Tribunal reactivated the application and directed that it be scheduled for mediation.

Walter Rudnicki v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Carla McRae, 2011 HRTO 770

Ena Chadha

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

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's numerous outstanding union grievances and a workplace harassment complaint.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the outstanding grievances to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, but declined to defer pending the workplace harassment complaint or to impose conditions requested by the applicant.

Hatton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 767

Ena Chadha

Association of Ontario Midwives Benefits Trust removed as a responding party on consent.

The applicant and respondents consented to the removal of the Association of Ontario Midwives Benefits Trust as a responding party to the application.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause accordingly and directed the Registrar's Office to schedule mediation, as the parties indicated they were amenable to participating.

Cloutier Holtz v. Midwives of Sudbury, 2011 HRTO 765

George James

3 cases2011–2017

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend teleconference hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the Landlord and Tenant Board had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The applicant failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order to provide correspondence to the respondents and failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Millien v. 1474367 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 759

Ena Chadha

Application dismissed at preliminary stage as allegations regarding ODSP payments did not raise Code-protected grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance, specifically concerning the handling of his ODSP payments by his caseworker.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of unfair treatment and harassment did not raise Code-protected grounds or reprisal, and dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

Burke v. Ontario (Finance), 2011 HRTO 749

Ena Chadha

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race and disability.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the matter fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction as it is a First Nations police service.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

Jamie Mageau v. Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service, 2011 HRTO 751

Ena Chadha

Personal respondent removed from human rights application as corporate respondent assumed responsibility for alleged conduct.

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

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's manager should be removed as a personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the allegations related directly to the manager's employment role, the corporate respondent agreed to assume responsibility, and no prejudice was asserted by the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.

Rastin v. Electro-Motive Canada, 2011 HRTO 750

Ena Chadha

Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant failed to establish criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period and for raising issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the original decision was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Rots v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 741

Dawn Phillips Brown

1 case2011–2011

Ena Chadha

Tribunal refuses to remove personal respondent and orders applicants to confirm position on disclosure.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent and sought production of documents from another Tribunal file to support a request for early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal refused to remove the personal respondent, finding a compelling basis to continue the proceeding against him given his central role in the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to confirm whether they would disclose any loss of income payment received in the other Tribunal file to prevent double recovery.

Traversy v. Erin District Lions Club Inc., 2011 HRTO 730

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 14, 2011

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; restating old concerns does not restart limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin, relating to her employment from 2000 to 2002 and a trespass notice issued in 2003.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the respondent's refusal to communicate with her in 2010 constituted a new incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the 2010 communications were merely references to the 2002 dismissal and 2003 trespass notice, which were the actual alleged discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal concluded the application was filed out of time and the delay was not incurred in good faith, dismissing the application.

Gayathri Seetharam v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 719

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 13, 2011

Tribunal directs applicant to file detailed statement of allegations before deciding on preliminary dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, but failed to provide a narrative explaining the allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) for lack of jurisdiction.

In response, the applicant claimed age discrimination but again provided no particulars.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage, noting it will only do so if it is 'plain and obvious' that it lacks jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to file a detailed statement describing the alleged discrimination within 14 days.

Elieen Lane v. Walmart Canada, 2011 HRTO 708

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 12, 2011

Deferred human rights application reactivated on consent following conclusion of grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant provided a copy of the arbitrator's decision disposing of the grievances.

As the respondents and intervenor consented to the request, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

Gholam Dewari v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Ltd., 2011 HRTO 694

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 8, 2011

Three related human rights applications consolidated and deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings.

The applicants filed three separate human rights applications against the respondents alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, facilities, and contracts.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three applications due to significant overlap in facts, issues, parties, and witnesses.

Furthermore, noting ongoing criminal proceedings involving the parties that arose from the same facts, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

Hadani v. Kingwest Fitness, 2011 HRTO 680

Ena Chadha

Human rights application against opposing lawyer dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file jurisdictional submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a lawyer who previously represented him in a class action settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the Code does not cover the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions on jurisdiction within the required 30-day period.

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

Reilley v. McPhadden, 2011 HRTO 661

Ena Chadha

Personal respondents removed from human rights application as corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against a corporate respondent and five individual employees.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the personal respondents, accepting vicarious liability for their actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment, the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedies, and there was no compelling reason to continue the application against the individuals.

Sylvia Joly v. Aditya Birla Minacs, 2011 HRTO 664

Ena Chadha

Employer's request to dismiss discrimination application based on employee's civil settlement with disability insurer denied.

The respondent employer requested the early dismissal of an employment discrimination application under sections 34(11) and 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's civil claim and subsequent settlement with his long-term disability insurer dealt with the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the employer was not a party to the civil action and the insurance claim did not appropriately resolve the employment discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm whether he would consent to disclosing the unredacted settlement figures, as they may be relevant to the issue of income loss damages.

Bindra v. Ontario Infrastructure Projects, 2011 HRTO 663

Ena Chadha

Reconsideration denied; subsequent cancellation of concurrent civil claim does not invalidate original dismissal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to an ongoing civil proceeding.

The applicant argued that she had decided to cancel her civil claim and wished to proceed with the Tribunal application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's recent change in litigation strategy did not alter the fact that a concurrent civil proceeding existed at the time of the original decision, and she failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

Ahmed v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2011 HRTO 660

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 5, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of overlapping WSIB claim regarding termination after workplace injury.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated after a workplace injury when the employer failed to accommodate him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB claim dealing with the same subject matter.

Finding that the factual background, human rights allegations, and remedies sought overlapped significantly with the WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB matter.

Reza Mehrpooya v. Future Shop/Best Buy Canada Ltd., 2011 HRTO 647

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 5, 2011

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or update contact information.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal sent correspondence warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if the applicant did not respond.

The applicant failed to respond and did not update his contact information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Phillip Tellier v. M & E Mowbray Enterprises Inc. and Michael Mowbray, 2011 HRTO 652

Ena Chadha