Sunil Kapur

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union and its officials discriminated against him by failing to assist him with grievances against his employer regarding accommodation.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely alleged a failure to act by the union, without any factual foundation that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant filed a transitional human rights application alleging discrimination by his union regarding work assignments and a suspension.

The respondents requested dismissal on two grounds: failure to attach the original Commission complaint as required by s. 53(5) of the Code, and that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal dismissed the procedural objection, finding the amended complaint attached was sufficient.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the OLRB had already appropriately dealt with the identical allegations in a prior s. 75 duty of fair representation proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her discrimination claim, arguing that a witness had come forward with new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the witness's evidence was known to the applicant during the original hearing and could have been obtained earlier, thus failing to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a former part-time custodian, alleged she was subjected to discrimination and harassment in employment based on sex, ethnic origin, and place of origin by her managers.

She claimed she was asked to perform demeaning tasks outside her job description and subjected to discriminatory comments.

The respondents denied the allegations, stating the applicant was argumentative and terminated for insubordination after a profane confrontation.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, preferred the respondents' consistent evidence, and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested to strike portions of the applicant's section 53(5) transitional application, arguing it improperly expanded the original human rights complaint to include new allegations and a new claim for damages.

The Tribunal struck the new allegations, which related to events after the applicant's maternity leave, finding they were not part of the original complaint and their inclusion was not necessary for a fair resolution.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the request for additional remedies, noting it does not generally limit applicants to the remedies sought in the original complaint.

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

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration under a collective agreement that raised substantially the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found no circumstances to depart from its normal approach of deferring such applications and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences after his employment was terminated because a criminal background check revealed pending criminal charges.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the definition of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to convictions, not pending charges.

The Tribunal also found that conducting a background check after employment commences does not, on its own, breach the Code.

The applicant, who is visually impaired and uses a guide dog, alleged discrimination when she was denied entry to the corporate respondent's restaurant.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the personal respondent refused entry to her guide dog, citing health department rules.

The Tribunal found this constituted discrimination on the basis of disability and awarded $2,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The complainant alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, including inappropriate comments and touching, during her employment.

The Tribunal found that the case turned entirely on credibility, as the supervisor denied all allegations.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant was not a credible witness due to the vagueness of her evidence, contradictions by other witnesses, and her admission of friendly interactions with the supervisor that defied logic given her allegations of fear and intimidation.

The complaint was dismissed.