Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 28, 2009

Tribunal ordered written submissions on preliminary jurisdictional issues to accommodate applicant's disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his union and the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents sought early dismissal on several grounds, including jurisdiction and delay.

Due to the applicant's disability-related inability to participate in oral hearings, the Tribunal ordered that the preliminary jurisdictional issues—specifically whether the application against the union is barred by section 53(8) of the Code and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over adjudicative decisions of the OLRB—be determined by way of written submissions.

William Thomson v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2009 HRTO 1568

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 24, 2009

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule a teleconference hearing to address the jurisdictional issue, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple telephone messages and written correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Edwards v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1547

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 10, 2009

Hearing adjourned for submissions on whether application is barred by previous Commission complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the subject-matter appeared to be the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which may bar the current application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal adjourned the scheduled hearing and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is jurisdictionally barred.

Christianson v. Windsor Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1438

Human rights application dismissed as termination of medical services was due to patient's disruptive behaviour, not discrimination.

The applicant, an older, white, disabled man, alleged that the respondent physician discriminated against him on the basis of race, age, and disability by treating him dismissively, refusing to prescribe requested medication, and terminating his medical care.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of dismissive treatment or that the refusal to prescribe medication was related to any protected Code grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant's medical services were terminated because he was confrontational, loud, and angry, causing a disruption at the clinic.

The application was dismissed.

Stangret v. Nagji, 2009 HRTO 1431

Kate Hughes

63 cases1998–2018

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 8, 2009

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as subject-matter was previously dealt with by Commission.

The respondents brought a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents argued the substance of the application was the same as a previous duty of fair representation complaint settled at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and a previous complaint dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, it lacked jurisdiction because the subject-matter of the application was substantially the same as the previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

Florips Bajouco v. Ontario Nurses’ Association and Mark Miller, 2009 HRTO 1418

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 8, 2009

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as subject-matter duplicated previous Commission complaints.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the substance of the application was the subject of two previous complaints filed with and dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the current application dealt with the same allegations of disability discrimination, harassment, reprisal, and failure to accommodate as the previous complaints.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

Florips Bajouco v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Bronwen Morgan, 2009 HRTO 1417

Ena Chadha

Human rights application allowed to proceed past preliminary delay screening.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application form indicated the last event occurred in 1995.

The applicant clarified that 1995 was the end of his sick leave, but the alleged discrimination occurred in 2008 and 2009 when a new collective agreement was negotiated and he was denied an early retirement package.

The Tribunal found the application appeared timely at this preliminary stage and directed that it be served on the respondents.

Wind v. General Motors of Canada, 2009 HRTO 1370

Ena Chadha

Preliminary hearing scheduled to determine if human rights application is barred by a signed release.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant acknowledged signing the release but claimed she did so under emotional and economic duress and without legal advice.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Flora Perricone v. Fabco Plastics Wholesale (Ontario) Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1384

Ena Chadha

Landlord breached duty to inquire about tenant's service dog, resulting in nominal damages.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him by seeking to terminate his tenancy early due to complaints about his dog's barking.

The dog assisted the applicant by alerting him to sounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in its procedural duty to inquire about the applicant's disability-related needs upon learning the dog might be a service animal.

However, because the respondent had other valid, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate the tenancy, the Tribunal awarded only nominal damages of $200 for the infringement of the inherent right to be free from discrimination, and ordered the respondent to undergo human rights training.

Edward Robdrup v. J. Werner Property Management Inc., 2009 HRTO 1372

Ena Chadha

Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine if application should be dismissed based on a release.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The respondents also requested the removal of two respondents from the application.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to consider the preliminary issues, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Alwazani v. Robert Half International, 2009 HRTO 1369

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2009

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration on same facts.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The respondent filed submissions supporting deferral, noting the ongoing arbitration.

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

Jonathan Guider v. Craigwood Youth Services, 2009 HRTO 1363

Mary Mackinnon

14 cases2000–2010

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2009

Employer discriminated by failing to accommodate injured worker's request for modified duties.

The applicant, a curb side assistant, sustained serious neck and back injuries in a bus accident and requested modified duties upon returning to work.

The respondent employer refused to accommodate her in a pre-arranged post, claiming she did not have a 'bona fide disability' because her doctor's note did not explicitly use the term 'disabled'.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed to fulfill both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to undergo human rights training.

Simpson v. Commissionaires (Great Lakes), 2009 HRTO 1362

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2009

Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a judge, a mental health centre, and a treatment team.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the judicial decision and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient details to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.

Shaikh v. Whitby Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1356

Ena Chadha

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondents.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Binks v. Hart Inc., 2009 HRTO 1328

Ena Chadha

Human rights application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Taylor v. St. Joseph’s Care Group, 2009 HRTO 1330

Ena Chadha

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Shover v. Kokomish Café, 2009 HRTO 1329

Ena Chadha

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondent and leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Monica Joanna Harrison v. Clarendon Foundation (Cheshire Homes) Inc., 2009 HRTO 1325

Ena Chadha

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions regarding the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Boris Shostak v. Multimatic Manufacturing, a Division of Multimatic Inc., 2009 HRTO 1327

Ena Chadha

Practising Law - Employed22 cases2009–2018

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondent.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Jasvir Araich v. Investments Hardware Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1326

Sie-Wing Khow

Melany Franklin

12 cases1991–2013

Mandy Eason

8 cases2008–2011

Kimberly R. Murray

12 cases2002–2011

Glenn Chu

14 cases2008–2016

Ena Chadha