Indira Sawh

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing, which was converted to a preliminary hearing after the applicant claimed she was medically unfit to participate.

Despite multiple directions and warnings, the applicant refused to attend the scheduled telephone conference calls to discuss how her applications should be handled.

The Tribunal found that her refusal to attend constituted an abuse of process, dismissed the applications, and ordered that she must obtain Tribunal consent before filing any future applications against the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary/summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to call in or provide any explanation for his absence.

The respondent and proposed respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant confirmed his availability.

However, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear, noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The applicant, an inmate, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the denial of necessary medications and his placement in protective custody.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while medical judgments are generally outside its jurisdiction, the applicant's claim that institutional policies regarding medication abuse influenced the decision raised an accommodation issue.

The Tribunal also found the protective custody allegations required further evidence.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached two terms of a prior settlement agreement.

The first term required individual respondents to complete an online human rights course, and the second related to the destruction of the applicant's fingerprints and photograph.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondents had completed the course, and that the allegation of breach was untimely under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Regarding the records, the Tribunal found no breach, as the settlement acknowledged that jurisdiction over destruction rested with the RCMP, not the respondent, and the respondent had requested the destruction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

He claimed that a Probation and Parole Officer falsely indicated he had a gang affiliation, which led the Children's Aid Society to revoke his community access to his daughter.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a nexus between the Officer's provision of information and the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex.

After waiting past the usual commencement time and receiving no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the named individual respondents and to require the applicant to disclose the identity and willsay statement of a witness identified as 'John Doe'.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove one individual respondent whose conduct was not central to the case, but denied the request to remove the other two individual respondents pending evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose the witness information.

The applicant, an inmate at the Thunder Bay District Jail, alleged discrimination and reprisal by correctional staff, claiming he was harassed, subjected to unsafe conditions, and called a 'political refugee'.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code, nor any evidence of an intention to reprise against the applicant.

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

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of arguably relevant documents, specifically video recordings and arrest records, which the applicant had referenced during a summary hearing.

The applicant opposed the request, claiming he no longer had access to the raw data and could not use the recordings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents in his possession and to provide a written explanation regarding the status and relevance of the arrest records and recordings, in accordance with Rule 16.1.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the completion of a grievance process.

The applicant argued that an internal investigation was complete, but the respondent opposed reactivation because the grievance process itself had not concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so under Rule 14.4 until the grievance process is completed.

The applicant, an inmate, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding prison conditions and the denial of previously prescribed medication.

He requested an interim remedy ordering the respondents to provide him with the medication.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it would be inappropriate to order the administration of medication without a physician's determination, and noting that the applicant failed to provide a signed declaration or demonstrate why the extraordinary remedy was necessary.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related grievance arbitration proceedings.

The applicant argued the arbitration was taking too long.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the arbitration was actively continuing with scheduled hearing dates and raised the same issues as the application.

The application remains deferred until the arbitration process concludes.

The applicant, a nurse at a correctional facility, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination, harassment, and constructive dismissal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because multiple grievances dealing with the same facts and issues were outstanding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant did not file submissions opposing the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceedings, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues and the Board's authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

The respondents opposed the re-activation, noting the grievance was still before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found no new information to justify re-activation and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the release of the GSB Vice Chair's decision on preliminary issues or for a further three months.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

The applicant argued that the grievance arbitration was delayed and his life was on hold.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the arbitration hearing was ongoing and the parties were awaiting a decision on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was still ongoing and dismissed the request, ordering that the application remain deferred until the conclusion of the arbitration process.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a related union grievance proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance process would not be productive, while the respondents supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped and deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting it was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant brought a human rights application on behalf of her husband, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal related to his arrest and incarceration.

The application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

After the criminal charges were stayed, the applicant requested to re-activate the application.

The respondents did not oppose re-activation but requested a new Form 4 to confirm the husband's continued consent.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate and declined to order a new Form 4, finding no evidence that the husband no longer supported the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

He claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notices were mailed to the address provided by the applicant, were not returned, and that he had received other correspondence at that address.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did receive notice and dismissed the request for reconsideration.