Jennifer Khurana

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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

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

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

Although both parties later informed the Tribunal that the matter had been settled, the applicant failed to provide a signed settlement form or respond to further Tribunal correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate her workplace restrictions.

The respondent employer and union requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been referred to arbitration.

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 Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to claim $25,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity and self-respect, having originally sought $1.

The respondent opposed the late request, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that amendments to remedial claims have been allowed up to the start of a hearing, and addressed any potential prejudice by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the property manager as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The respondents did not file a response.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth and the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found it appropriate to add the proposed respondent, as the application alleged he issued a trespass notice against the applicant, which was a central issue in the proceedings.

The request was granted.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as it related to the conduct of a lawyer and an adjudicator in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an interim order for the production of various documents from the respondent City of Ottawa and third-party police records.

The Tribunal ordered the third-party Ottawa Police Service to produce witness statements and notes related to the specific incident, as they were arguably relevant and the police consented.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymized copies of all Trespass to Property Notices issued by the respondent over the past 3 to 5 years, finding the request overly broad, speculative, and a fishing expedition.

The scheduled hearing dates were converted to mediation/adjudication due to outstanding disclosure issues.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his 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.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events did not appear to be connected to Ontario.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federal government agency, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone mediation, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

Despite receiving multiple notices and confirming his attendance, the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

After granting a 30-minute grace period and an additional 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, gender identity, and record of offences.

The applicant had also filed a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act regarding her termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding financial hardship, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, noting the substantial factual overlap between the two proceedings.

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

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

Applying its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A telephone conference call hearing was scheduled to determine the alleged contravention and request for additional compensation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and disability regarding a hiring process conducted by the Public Service Commission of Canada for a position with Employment and Social Development Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the matter falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction and outside the scope of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a 30-day adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing it believed the applicant did not intend to pursue the Application and that certain medical documents had not been produced.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are not automatically granted and require exceptional circumstances, which the respondent failed to demonstrate.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with any outstanding production issues to be addressed at that time.