Jennifer Khurana

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination sought an interim order for the production of the respondent's audited financial statements and other internal documents.

The respondent opposed, citing confidentiality and lack of relevance, arguing the termination was due to economic restructuring.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce financial statements from 2012 to 2015, finding them arguably relevant to the respondent's defence of economic restructuring, and directed compliance with prior disclosure orders.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, race, and colour, claiming she and a colleague were subjected to adverse treatment and termination.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code infringement.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was allowed to proceed to the next stage.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination and received a settlement payment.

The Tribunal found that the release was clear and unambiguous, and that the applicant's mistaken belief that the release was conditional on an internal investigation did not invalidate it.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, through his litigation guardian, alleged discrimination in education services based on disability.

The respondent school board requested an order permitting it to access the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) to prepare its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the OSR was necessary to make full answer and defence to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The applicant was ordered to provide written consent to the disclosure, failing which the application could be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging termination due to a workplace injury.

After retaining counsel, the applicant requested an order to amend the Application to add factual particulars, correct the respondent's name, and increase the remedy sought, as well as an extension of time to file a Reply.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors for amending pleadings and granted the request, noting it was made at an early stage before mediation and the proposed amendments clarified the allegations.

The applicant was granted 14 days to file a Reply.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request.

After being granted an extension, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested an order for the production of various documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce documents related to the applicant's performance and training, as well as statistics on the personal characteristics of other employees trained by a specific individual, finding them arguably relevant to the allegations.

The request for communications with the union was denied as the respondent did not possess them.

The applicant requested to amend the remedy sought in her human rights application, which the Tribunal granted as the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel and potential witnesses might be subpoenaed for a Superior Court trial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the potential scheduling conflict was tentative and did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to comply with their overdue disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family and marital status after a family court processing centre refused to process his application for a restraining order against his parents and brother.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's situation did not meet the statutory requirements for a restraining order under the Family Law Act, as the individuals named were not spouses or cohabiting in a conjugal relationship.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the refusal of service to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a Ministry of Labour proceeding under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry of Labour proceeding was limited to employment standards issues and did not address the substantive allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment.

The request to dismiss was denied, and the application was ordered to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $3,000 in general damages agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent admitted to the non-payment but cited financial hardship as the reason.

The Tribunal found that financial strain does not excuse compliance with a binding settlement agreement.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to immediately pay the $3,000 owed, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant, a Grade 1 student, alleged discrimination based on race and colour by his school's teachers and principal.

The respondent school board requested the removal of the individual respondents and the dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties since the school board accepted liability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application, concluding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's litigation guardian could not point to any evidence, beyond her own speculation and assumptions, linking the alleged unfair treatment to a protected Code ground.

The respondent filed a second request to adjourn the hearing of a Contravention of Settlement Application sine die, pending the conclusion of a civil claim against the applicant.

The adjudicator denied the request, finding no exceptional reasons to justify adjourning the hearing, as the second request raised the same issues as a previously denied request.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order for particulars and an extension of time to file their Response, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained enough information about the alleged discrimination based on disability and sexual orientation for the respondents to understand the claims and file a general response.

The respondents failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to order particulars at this preliminary stage.

The respondent requested an adjournment sine die of a hearing regarding an alleged contravention of settlement, arguing that a related civil claim was ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the adjournment, noting the minimal overlap with the civil claim and the fact that the hearing had already been rescheduled once.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and rescheduled at the applicant's request to July 5, 2016.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing by telephone conference.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant later emailed acknowledging he missed the hearing but provided no explanation.

The Tribunal found no basis to reconsider the dismissal.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related Ministry of Labour proceeding regarding Employment Standards Act claims.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no substantial overlap between the issues and remedies in the two proceedings.

The human rights application alleged discrimination and sexual harassment, while the Ministry of Labour claim concerned unpaid wages and hours of work.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, improper notice of layoff, and failure to accommodate workplace restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and issues, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay general damages as agreed in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, and scheduled a telephone conference call hearing to determine the remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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