Avneet Grewal

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the occasional teachers list for failing to re-register for the academic year.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking his dismissal, his inability to secure permanent employment, or alleged record alterations to his Indigenous ancestry or a prior complaint.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add new allegations regarding a prior student placement and to add York University as a respondent.

The respondents opposed these requests and sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, finding that the proposed new allegations were untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and did not form part of a series of incidents with the original allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent, as her conduct was a central issue in the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his employer and union failed to appropriately address his complaints of workplace harassment.

The applicant conceded that the harassment itself was not based on a Code ground, but argued the Code was engaged because the harassment caused him to develop a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application following a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the Code is not engaged merely because a disability arises from non-Code-related workplace interactions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the intervenor supported deferral, and the respondents supported deferral if the matter was not dismissed.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.