Jennifer Khurana

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's manager made discriminatory comments based on her Indigenous heritage and that her race was a factor in her termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors in law, incorrectly applied the pre-judgment interest rate, and erred in its credibility findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case, but corrected a transcription error regarding the pre-judgment interest rate.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application after his union withdrew related grievances.

The respondents opposed, requesting the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts, or alternatively, that it remain deferred.

The Tribunal found that s. 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege Code violations or seek remedies for discrimination.

However, given the significant factual overlap regarding the applicant's performance evaluations and termination, the Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged that the adjudicator was biased, acted improperly during the hearing, and that another Vice-chair should have heard the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts or evidence, and concluding that the applicant's bald assertions of bias did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was an attempt to re-argue the case based on disagreement with the outcome.

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

Several respondents failed to file a Response as directed in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against one individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a complete name and address.

The remaining non-responding respondents were directed to file a Response within 7 days or face potential orders without their participation.

Mediation was scheduled for the participating parties.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process concluded on April 1, 2016, when the union withdrew the grievance, making the applicant's July 20, 2016 request to reactivate untimely under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit, finding no good faith reason for the delay, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $15,000 and implement public interest remedies agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent did not file a Response but participated in the hearing, acknowledging the breach.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the settlement and ordered the payment of the $15,000 settlement amount, plus $3,000 in general damages for the distress caused by the breach, and directed the implementation of the remaining non-monetary terms.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on sex (pregnancy) after being laid off.

Prior to this, she had filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, raising essentially the same allegations, which an Employment Standards Officer investigated and dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the Ministry of Labour proceeding and dismissed the application to prevent re-litigation.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide availability for a preliminary hearing to determine if there was a properly named respondent.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal and the respondents regarding scheduling.

After issuing a final direction warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal, and receiving no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging mistreatment during a hospital admission.

The applicant sought reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a), claiming new facts regarding a psychiatrist's request for his personal items.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the facts were new, could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, or were potentially determinative of the case.

The respondent requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application had been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA proceeding did not address the failure to accommodate allegations.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal of the ESA decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, noting sufficient factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and subsequently submitted requests to amend the application to add the ground of reprisal and increase the requested remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend, finding that the amendments would not delay the proceedings or cause undue prejudice to the respondents, as the hearing was still being scheduled and pre-hearing disclosure had not yet occurred.

The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal dismissed the second request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances as required by Rule 26.7.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, creed, sex, family status, and marital status.

Concurrently, she filed requests to expedite the proceedings and for an interim remedy to secure the rental property or prevent its rental or sale.

The Tribunal denied both requests.

The applicant failed to file the required statutory declarations supporting her requests.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the request to expedite was moot as the applicant had secured alternate housing, and she failed to meet the significant onus required for an interim remedy.

The respondents requested an order for the early production of documents relating to the applicant's mitigation efforts and Employment Insurance records.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to order production prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The matter was already scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay, where the applicant bears the onus of proving the delay was incurred in good faith.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to file its hearing documents and witness statements, citing vacation schedules and the health issues of a key witness.

The applicant opposed the requests.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and denied the extension of time, noting the respondent had already missed multiple deadlines.

The respondent was directed to comply with disclosure obligations by a specified date.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

He submitted additional medical documents, alleging a cover-up by the respondent's doctors.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the new documents did not explain the delay in filing the application.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a former resident of a cooperative housing complex, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, marital status, and age by the property management group and its representative.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations, finding no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment (such as ignored maintenance requests and notices of arrears) to a protected Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed two specific allegations regarding discriminatory comments allegedly made by the individual respondent to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Brockville Police Service Board and Michael Grant.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal converted the upcoming hearing into a preliminary hearing to address the issue of delay and directed the parties to provide submissions and medical evidence regarding whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

The applicant argued that reactivation was necessary due to the departure of key witnesses and delays by the respondent in scheduling the arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not been unduly delayed and that reactivating the application would risk concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant's other requests were dismissed as premature.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging that a previous settlement agreement was signed under duress and should be set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over such applications where there is an allegation that a term of the settlement has been breached.

Because the applicant did not allege a breach, the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.