Jennifer Khurana

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the HPARB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a Law Society of Upper Canada investigation.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times to inquire about the status of the investigation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The respondent employer named the union (IBEW) as an additional respondent in its response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the union because the employer did not identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by the union.

The employer agreed it made no specific allegations but reserved the right to do so in the future.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding it plain and obvious that the application raised no matters against it.

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

The individual 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 applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and ordered that the individual respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

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.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's Request for Order During Proceeding and to provide complete particulars of his allegations.

The applicant was warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested permission to file a late Reply and sought an order for early production of documents prior to a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to file a late Reply, noting it was early in the process, but adjourned the summary hearing to prevent prejudice to the respondent.

The request for early production was denied as premature, as the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting disclosure before the summary hearing.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed on the applicant's behalf and referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent union grievance proceeding raised the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its normal approach.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and the remedy sought.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting it was made in a timely manner and unopposed.

The Tribunal also noted that deferral was no longer an issue as the applicant had withdrawn her related Ministry of Labour complaint, and addressed a correction to the corporate respondent's legal name.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response after retaining new counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it was made early in the proceedings, related directly to the issues in dispute, and caused no prejudice or delay to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated entity, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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 described did not appear to be connected to Ontario.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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