Ena Chadha

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application and production of documents.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the independent medical examinations they conducted were services provided to the employer and union, not the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside a protected social area.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request for production of the applicant's previous complaints and concurrent applications against her employer and union, as they were relevant to potential dismissal or deferral under sections 53(8) and 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondents from the application.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the individual respondents were acting within the course of their employment, the organizational respondent assumed responsibility for their conduct, and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging retaliatory dismissal due to a previous human rights complaint.

The respondents argued the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Code as it dealt with the same subject-matter as the previous complaint.

The Tribunal found the reprisal allegations were new and distinct, and thus not barred by section 53(8).

However, because the applicant had an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on record of offences in his employment as a truck driver.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the respondent's interprovincial and international freight transport business falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination against an organizational respondent and an individual respondent.

The individual respondent, who was no longer employed by the organizational respondent, did not receive notice of the application at the business address provided.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for the individual respondent or to request an order requiring the former employer to provide the contact information, failing which the Tribunal would not deal with the application against the individual respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it had failed to accommodate the applicant on the basis of disability.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and miscalculated damages, relying on provisions of the collective agreement not tendered at the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent failed to explain why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that reconsideration is not an appeal process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate his section 34 Application with his Transitional Application, or alternatively, to replace the Transitional Application with the section 34 Application.

The Tribunal denied the request to consolidate because the two applications were at entirely different stages of the Tribunal process, noting that the hearing for the Transitional Application had already commenced.

The Tribunal also denied the request to replace the application, stating there is no mechanism to simply replace a Transitional Application, and advised the applicant on the procedure to withdraw it if he so chooses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences, claiming she was falsely accused of drinking alcohol at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the allegations fell within the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the 'record of offences' ground as no facts supported a conviction or pardon.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed on the ground of 'disability', finding that allegations of mistreatment based on perceived alcoholism may fall within its jurisdiction.

The complainant, a used car salesman, alleged that he was subjected to sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment by a co-worker who frequently exposed himself, made lewd comments, and watched loud pornography in the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's conduct constituted sexual harassment and that management condoned the behaviour, failing to take the complainant's concerns seriously.

The Tribunal also found that the complainant's subsequent dismissal and a false police report filed by the employer alleging vehicle theft constituted reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The Tribunal awarded $50,000 in total damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to implement human rights policies and training.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to alcohol and drug addiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss because the application appeared to be filed out of time and involved the same subject-matter as a previously abandoned complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the subject-matter was substantially the same as the prior Commission complaint.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss because the Application did not indicate how the alleged conduct related to the applicant's right to be free of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant alleged general unfairness and corruption without linking the mistreatment to a Code ground or an attempt to enforce Code rights.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination of her employment.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress and distress following her sister's death, and did not understand she was releasing her human rights claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood she was entering into a severance agreement and that financial pressure alone does not constitute economic duress sufficient to void a release.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not indicate how the circumstances fell within the protected area.

The applicant responded that he initiated the complaint to see if the respondent would apologize, intending to use him as a witness in another complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the applicant failed to identify any basis for a Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three individual respondents.

Two respondents filed responses, but the third did not.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to correct the spelling of one respondent's name.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondent to file a response by a final deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an earlier Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim dealt with the same factual circumstances.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA decision did not provide reasons for its findings and did not consider whether the applicant's pregnancy-related accommodation request was a factor in her dismissal.

The ESA process therefore did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling, an unlawful vehicle search, and a taser threat during a traffic stop by unnamed police officers.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested that the application be dismissed against it on a preliminary basis, arguing it is not vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers.

The Tribunal declined to address the liability of the board on a preliminary basis, directing that the application proceed through the regular process.

The Tribunal also provided directions to the applicant on how to request an order for the production of the unnamed officers' identities.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had ongoing grievances and a complaint with the College of Nurses of Ontario arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that found it had contravened the Human Rights Code, arguing the Tribunal misapprehended the scope of the applicant's medical benefits coverage when calculating damages.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions addressing the scope of her medical benefits coverage before determining the reconsideration request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing.

During the proceedings, the applicant sent voluminous and abusive correspondence to the Tribunal.

The Executive Director requested a written undertaking from the applicant to treat Tribunal staff and parties with respect.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal issued an interim decision adjourning the hearing for one year or until the required undertaking is provided, failing which the application will be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed multiple grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.