Romona Gananathan

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 was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

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.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondents contravened the terms of a Minutes of Settlement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the $30,000 settlement funds and failing to complete required human rights training.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $30,000 settlement amount immediately, along with $5,000 in general damages for the financial and emotional harm caused by the breach, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicants filed separate applications under the Human Rights Code against the respondent.

A joint mediation was scheduled, but the applicants failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicants warning that failure to respond could result in their applications being deemed abandoned.

As the applicants did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent hospital and doctor regarding their refusal to share his wife's medical information and permit him to visit her while she was a patient.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not the patient receiving services, and absent his wife's consent to disclose medical information, there was no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a Code-protected ground.

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

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 regarding the application.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application and indicated she would not attend.

The Tribunal converted the hearing to a teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend or provide a valid reason for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate in the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on family status against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union discriminated against her by suggesting she apologize to her employer for being busy with her father and by refusing to pursue a grievance regarding a non-disciplinary letter of expectation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to point to any evidence beyond her own suspicions that the union's actions were linked to her family status or constituted a reprisal.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $2,500 in general damages and failing to conduct an accessibility review of parking infraction procedures within 12 months.

The Tribunal found a technical breach regarding the timing of the review and the payment, but noted the respondent complied with the substantive terms upon being notified of the application.

As the object of the Code is remedial rather than punitive, the Tribunal made no order for a remedy.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to complete an online human rights training course within 30 days.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did breach the agreement by completing the training approximately six months late.

However, because the breach was minor and the respondent ultimately complied with the training requirement, the Tribunal declined to award the applicant any monetary damages for mental distress or punitive damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal sent two letters to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the WSIB proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to both letters.

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

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by removing two paragraphs and revising others.

The respondents consented on the condition that the applicant file an amended application showing all changes in a single document.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the amendments narrowed the scope of the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal regarding the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying its established approach, the Tribunal found that the respondents had chosen not to participate in the proceedings.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

The matter was directed to proceed to a telephone hearing.

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 within the specified timeframe.

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

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

A mediation was scheduled on consent, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting confirmation of her intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed in light of the respondent's response, but the applicant failed to reply.

After a subsequent warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.