Jennifer Khurana

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to medical issues and an inability to secure legal representation.

The applicant provided a medical note confirming his health concerns, and the respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to accommodate the applicant's medical condition, subject to the applicant providing updated medical information by a specified date.

The Tribunal noted that lack of counsel alone is not a valid reason for an adjournment.

The applicant's additional request for an order for production of documents was denied as premature in light of the adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a school and an individual teacher, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual teacher as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep the individual as a respondent since the school board accepted liability for its employee's actions and there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any potential Code infringement.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to name the school board as the proper organizational respondent.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance proceedings under a collective agreement.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings on the same facts.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The applicant claimed the grievance process had concluded.

The organizational respondent objected, providing evidence that arbitration proceedings related to the applicant's grievances were still ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding it premature as the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued that his legal representative had inadvertently failed to respond to the original deferral request.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting that the WSIB proceedings were ongoing and that reactivation could result in inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so while the WSIB process had not yet concluded.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Ontario Court of Justice for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Family Law Act was incorrect and alleged a conflict of interest because both the Tribunal and the respondent fall under the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent hospital brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the grounds of discrimination relied upon by the applicant in his human rights application.

The Tribunal found that no order was necessary because the applicant had already responded to the request by indicating he was relying on the grounds of disability, threat of reprisal, and reprisal, and alleging a failure to accommodate and threats of termination related to sick time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent added conditions to her daycare license.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the applicant's related appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the application was filed first, it was unclear whether the LAT would consider the discrimination issues or offer appropriate remedies, and there was insufficient evidence of overlapping issues at this stage.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a doctor as an individual respondent to her human rights application against a hospital.

The application alleged a failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the doctor's individual conduct was not a central issue and that adding him 17 months after the incident would cause significant prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent college, claiming he was unlawfully removed from the premises and the country in 2008.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the delay was justified due to ongoing harassment in Pakistan, which he claimed was a continuation of the discrimination.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay, noting that ongoing consequences of a past decision do not constitute new incidents of discrimination.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding proposed to call an occupational therapist as an expert witness to testify about the stowage of her wheelchair in taxi cabs.

The respondent opposed the qualification.

The Tribunal qualified the witness as an expert but limited the scope of her testimony.

The Tribunal allowed evidence regarding the cost and damage associated with improper trunk stowage, but excluded evidence on the applicant's specific use of the device and safety concerns with accessible minivans, finding those topics unnecessary given the evidence already heard.

The respondent requested an order to hold the human rights application in abeyance pending the mediation of concurrent civil proceedings between the parties.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, holding the application in abeyance for 30 days to allow the parties to mediate the civil action, which could potentially resolve all issues between them.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant and his legal representative failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services board regarding their response to an incident at his residence.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking remedies for alleged human rights violations.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim raised substantially the same allegations and sought remedies under the Code.

As section 34(11) operates as an absolute bar to jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application and declined to consider the applicant's request to amend the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of marital and family status after a police officer responded to a domestic incident report made by his former fiancé.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the police conduct to his marital or family status, concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissing it.

The applicant, a 19-year-old man with a developmental disability and mental health issues, alleged that the respondent emergency room physician discriminated against him by failing to perform a physical examination before referring him to a crisis team.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond mere speculation that his disability was a factor in the respondent's medical decisions.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, a same-sex married couple, alleged discrimination after a private Christian school denied their child admission to its preschool program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural requests.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce internal admission policies but denied broader requests for other parents' application forms.

The Tribunal allowed the applicants to amend their pleadings to add grounds of creed, family status, and marital status.

To protect the minor child's identity, the Tribunal ordered the record sealed but declined to close the hearing to the public.

The applicant, a Muslim woman who wears a hijab, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after her employer informed her she could no longer wear her hijab while working at a Catholic school due to a contract change with the school board.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application to add sex as a ground of discrimination, amend her requested remedies, and add the Catholic school board as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted all three requests, finding the amendments were sought at an early stage and the school board was appropriately added as the entity responsible for the contract terms that led to the alleged discrimination.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding initiated by the applicant's fiancé.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB proceeding did not address the applicant's substantive allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add her former employer, Eco-Guard Pest Control Inc., as a corporate respondent on consent.