Gita Anand

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc. as a corporate respondent, as it was the employer of the personal respondent.

The personal respondent took no position and the proposed corporate respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding there were allegations that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer this application pending the determination of an earlier 2009 application involving similar facts and issues, notably concerning alleged sexual harassment by a personal respondent and a failure to investigate.

Finding significant overlap between the two matters, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions and prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to provide particulars regarding the expected evidence of some of her witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's witness statements for three witnesses only provided general topics and did not meet the Tribunal's requirements.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particularized witness statements and further details regarding her allegations about being required to attend an Annual General Meeting.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry and age, claiming that during a job interview, the respondent's representatives made derogatory comments about his age and Jewish ancestry.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding who made the alleged comments to be highly inconsistent and unreliable, failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring the applicant, specifically his unkempt appearance and refusal to provide references.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent acted reasonably in investigating the applicant's subsequent email complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application the evening before a scheduled mediation.

The respondent objected to an unconditional withdrawal, requesting that the application be dismissed or withdrawn on the condition that it not be reinstituted.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file the same allegations, the respondent may raise its objections at that time.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent stopped his benefits after 39 weeks.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the six-month statutory time limit under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was filed more than six months after the alleged contravention.

Because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, there was no basis to find the delay was incurred in good faith under section 45.9(4).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former part-time usher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age following his termination for excessive absenteeism.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a grievance arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the factual underpinnings of the applicant's absences and concluded that the termination was justified under the collective agreement.

As the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claim, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences following his termination.

The claims regarding age and record of offences were withdrawn or dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the employer was unaware of the applicant's undiagnosed ADHD and sleep apnea at the time of termination.

The decision to terminate the applicant was made for legitimate business reasons during a corporate downsizing.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations and several other claims, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link to a prohibited ground or an intention to retaliate.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate the applicant's disability to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request because new evidence showed the applicant had contacted Tribunal staff by telephone and email after the initial notice, meaning the basis for the deemed abandonment was incorrect.

The dismissal was set aside and the application was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The corporate respondent acknowledged that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment at all material times.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, as the corporate respondent could remedy any human rights violations found.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicant, a transgender woman, sought to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination by a women's-only fitness facility.

The respondents requested costs or a monetary award for abuse of process, citing the stigma and expense of defending the claim.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the request for costs, finding it lacked statutory authority to award costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted the requisite rules.

The Tribunal also found no abuse of process by the applicant.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation regarding admission to a women's only fitness facility, the respondents sought production of various documents and particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant, a pre-operative transsexual at the time of the incident, to produce medical records relating to her transsexual surgery and treating physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' requests for documents relating to the bona fides of the applicant's membership application, counselling notes, restraining orders, and further particulars, finding them not arguably relevant to the issues of liability or necessary for a fair hearing.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex after being denied admission to a women-only fitness facility.

The respondents filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that a finding of discrimination would violate women's freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter, and that the human rights process violated the personal respondent's rights under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter.

The respondents sought to have these constitutional issues determined before the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal ordered that the section 7 and 11(b) arguments be determined via written submissions during an adjournment necessitated by the applicant's health, while the section 2(d) argument would be dealt with at the hearing on the merits.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability.

The complainant's job offer for a safety-sensitive position was withdrawn after he tested positive for marijuana during a pre-employment drug test.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the offer was withdrawn due to dishonesty, not disability, and that marijuana use without disability is not protected.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support a claim of discrimination based on perceived disability and that the dispute over the reason for the withdrawal required a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also declined to restrict the scope of the inquiry solely to the marijuana elements of the drug testing policy.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which found that his union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a temporary employee, argued the union should have pursued his wrongful dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Vice-Chair's conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with the grievance was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 16.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with personal service of a Notice of Application for Judicial Review and Summonses on a Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and another individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Vice-Chair is immune from such process and the other individual made no decision amenable to judicial review.

The court directed the applicant to amend the title of proceedings if the application is to proceed.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer violated section 72(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to offer employment to six union members at a new facility following a plant closure.

The six complainants were all past or present members of the union executive.

The employer claimed the decisions were based on performance evaluations and attitude.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the decisions were completely free of anti-union animus, noting inconsistencies in the employer's explanations and evidence of anti-union sentiment.

The applications were allowed.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.