Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about fair consideration as a probationary employee and potential delay.

The respondents supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, noting the overlap in subject matter and remedies sought.

Fenwick v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 1618

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2010

Tribunal consolidates related human rights applications and denies preliminary requests to dismiss.

The applicants filed three related human rights applications against the school board, police, and Crown respondents.

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The applications were withdrawn against the Thunder Bay Police as it is not a legal entity.

The Tribunal consolidated the three applications to proceed together.

A request by an individual respondent to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, based on a prior employment grievance settlement, was denied because the prior proceeding did not deal with the substance of the human rights applications.

Other preliminary jurisdictional objections regarding prosecutorial discretion and the definition of 'services' were deferred to a later stage.

C.N. v. Lakehead District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1610

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 27, 2010

Respondents' request to dismiss application or order early disclosure denied; extension of time to respond granted.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application as incomplete because the applicant withheld documentation referred to in her narrative.

Alternatively, they sought an order for early disclosure and an extension of time to file their Response.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the application contained sufficient material facts for the respondents to provide a meaningful response.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early disclosure as premature under Rule 16, but granted the respondents an extension of 25 days to file their Response.

Morra v. Gesco, 2010 HRTO 1606

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 23, 2010

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application or face default proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation.

The respondents were given 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

Pamela Pierce v. West Court Place Inc., 837690 Ontario and Dennis Renaud, 2010 HRTO 1600

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 22, 2010

Tribunal orders respondents to clarify representation and file responses or face proceedings without their participation.

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

Several respondents failed to file responses within the required timeframes or failed to clarify on whose behalf they were responding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to clarify their representation, provide the proper legal name of the corporate respondent, and file their responses within specified deadlines, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them.

Chedore v. McBoyco Limited, 2010 HRTO 1590

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2010

Respondent given 14 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

Angela Dewartz v. Fifty’s Restaurant, 2010 HRTO 1588

Ena Chadha

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Royal Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banking falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and is therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Colette Forde v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2010 HRTO 1573

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; pursuing parallel proceedings does not justify delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of her specialty dental certification more than one year after the last alleged incident.

She argued the delay was justified because she was pursuing an appeal before the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that pursuing other legal avenues does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant could have filed a timely application and requested a deferral.

Sahza Hatibovic-Kofman v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1578

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; pursuing other avenues did not constitute good faith delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and dismissal based on disability, more than one year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by seeking assistance from his union, an MP's office, and dealing with personal issues.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other avenues is not a valid reason for delay and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation demonstrating good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

Johri v. General Motors of Canada, 2010 HRTO 1577

Ena Chadha

Respondent granted 14 days to file late Response to human rights application before Tribunal proceeds.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice.

The respondent was granted 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Amanda Wood v. Jack’s (Partytown), 2010 HRTO 1576

Ena Chadha

Respondent granted 14 days to file a Response after failing to respond to Notice of Application.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days of the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Gerald Weatherall v. Erosion Control Blanket, 2010 HRTO 1574

Ena Chadha

Tribunal grants respondent 14 days to file a response before proceeding without its participation.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of orders being made without its participation.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

Sharon Ruttan v. The Apollo Restaurant & Tavern, 2010 HRTO 1570

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed for failing to link incomprehensible allegations to any protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, making incomprehensible allegations about micro-chips and internet spying.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination related to a Code ground.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found no connection between the alleged unfairness and any protected ground, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Shawn Bingham v. Peel Regional Police 21 Division and Shannon Manna, 2010 HRTO 1536

Ena Chadha

Respondents granted final 14-day extension to file Response after missing previous deadlines.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the initial deadline and subsequently missed an extended deadline requested by their Legal Department.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondents a final 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted under Rule 5.5.

Rodrigues v. United Cleaning Services Limited, 2010 HRTO 1565

Ena Chadha

Human rights application against federal agency dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent is a federal agency, placing the matter outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Fariah Khokhar v. Canada Border Services Agency, Client Services, 2010 HRTO 1560

Ena Chadha

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application after missing initial deadline.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted them 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

Aileen Saligumba v. The Hudson’s Bay Company Store #1560, 2010 HRTO 1558

Ena Chadha

Tribunal removes one individual respondent but retains another; request to defer application dismissed.

The respondents requested orders to remove two individual respondents and to defer the human rights application pending an Identification Placement and Review Committee proceeding.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed one individual respondent whose alleged conduct related solely to her employment role, but declined to remove the other whose personal behaviour was impugned.

The request for deferral was dismissed as the respondents failed to identify any specific proceeding currently underway.

N.P. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1540

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed for failing to connect incomprehensible allegations to a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, claiming the respondent police and neighbourhood girls planted micro-chips in his head and spied on him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant's subsequent submissions did not explain how the alleged mistreatment related to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed as it did not raise matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Shawn Bingham v. Peel Police, 2010 HRTO 1537

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 14, 2010

Human rights applications deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent Social Benefits Tribunal appeals.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the denial of Ontario Works benefits.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether to defer the applications pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which raised the same human rights issues.

As no submissions were received, the Tribunal ordered the applications deferred pending the completion of the SBT proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

Steven McKinnon v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1532

Ena Chadha