Raj Kanwal Anand

The applicant brought a human rights application against a police services board and individual officers.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the respondents' request for an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the production of specific police notes and chain of custody documents relevant to the applicant's arrests, but denied requests for documents based on speculative allegations of conspiracy and collusion.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to adjourn the hearing, finding that retaining new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled dates did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her pregnancy-related illness and subsequently terminated her employment as a reprisal for taking pregnancy leave.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, where the applicant was successful.

The Tribunal found that the termination and reprisal allegations were appropriately dealt with in the OLRB proceeding and dismissed those parts of the application.

However, the Tribunal held that the allegation of failure to accommodate was not dealt with by the OLRB and could proceed, finding it was not out of time as it formed part of a series of incidents with the termination.

Following a prior order dismissing the plaintiff’s action for delay, the court addressed written submissions on costs brought by the successful moving defendants.

The defendants sought recovery of both the motion costs and the costs of the action, with some defendants requesting substantial indemnity costs.

The court confirmed that costs were payable but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff’s delay warranted dismissal of the action, it did not justify punitive costs.

The court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced sums reflecting reasonableness and the limited complexity of the motion and proceedings.

The applicant, a nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences against the College of Nurses of Ontario and several individuals.

The allegations stemmed from a Fitness to Practise Committee hearing that resulted in the suspension of her certificate of registration due to a finding of incapacity related to bipolar disorder.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted that adjudicative immunity protected the panel members, opposing counsel were not covered by the Code, and the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the College's actions to discriminatory stereotypes rather than its statutory mandate to assess competence.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and the Fair Practices Commission (FPC) on various grounds, including disability and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations amounted to a disagreement with the WSIB's decisions and the FPC's handling of her complaints, without any evidence linking their actions to a protected Code ground.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who was unsuccessful in her bid to become Dean of the University of Windsor Law School, brought requests for the production of unredacted search committee documents.

The University opposed production, claiming privilege under the Wigmore test.

Given the proximity to the hearing and the need for evidence to assess the privilege claim, the Tribunal deferred the determination of the privilege issue until after the applicant's case-in-chief.

The Tribunal also granted the individual respondent's request to seal certain documents pending the resolution of the privilege issue.

The applicant in a human rights complaint regarding a decanal search brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking clarification on a previous order bifurcating the hearing.

The applicant sought to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses during the first phase on matters reserved for the second phase.

The Tribunal denied the request, restricting phase I evidence and cross-examination to phase I issues.

The Tribunal also addressed document production disputes, ordering the respondent University to organize its disclosure numerically and reminding the applicant of her obligation to comply with production deadlines and undertakings.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

The respondent University brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to strike portions of the applicant's revised narrative, clarify a previous phasing order, and establish a revised schedule.

The Tribunal declined to amend its previous order bifurcating the hearing into two phases, finding that evidence regarding the applicant's involvement in equity-seeking initiatives was relevant to the first phase concerning the decanal search.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to strike contextual allegations as premature, noting that arguments about delay and proportionality would be addressed in phase two.

The respondents were granted leave to file revised Responses and a timeline for document disclosure was established.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being advised that a seniors' residence on his social housing waiting list was restricting access to individuals of Greek origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application based on the exemption in section 18 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also raised a Charter challenge.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the stand-alone Charter challenge.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the residence met the three-part test under section 18 of the Code as a philanthropic organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons of Greek origin.

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

The moving defendants sought dismissal of a civil action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, arising from a 2003 real estate transaction and alleging solicitor’s negligence and unpaid purchase funds, had remained largely inactive for over seven years.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, particularly given the plaintiff’s failure to advance the case despite prior administrative dismissal and reinstatement with directions to schedule a case conference.

Prejudice was established due to the death of a key participant and witness whose testimony was central to the disputed arrangements between the parties.

Balancing the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the defendants’ right to a fair trial, the court concluded that the defendants’ ability to defend the action had been irreparably compromised.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that Tarion Warranty Corporation and the Tarion Ombudsperson Office discriminated against the claimant on the basis of disability by failing to consider her Code-related needs when determining that floor noises in her new home were not a warrantable major structural defect.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Tarion under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in Tarion's adjudicative proceeding, which addressed the human rights arguments.

The application against the Ombudsperson was also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no allegation that the claimant's disability was a factor in the Ombudsperson's decision not to pursue the complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging both individual and systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex regarding her failed bid to become Dean of the Faculty of Law.

The Tribunal held that an individual applicant under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code does not have standing to bring public interest allegations that are unrelated to the alleged infringement of their own individual rights.

The applicant was directed to amend her application to remove allegations over which she lacked standing and to clarify which matters were allegations of discrimination versus contextual evidence.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college's non-exemptible examination requirement for a specialty certificate discriminated against him.

The respondent college requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by its Registration Committee.

The Tribunal found that the Registration Committee process was a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, that the discrimination issue was essentially the same, and that the applicant had a full opportunity to present his case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it is not an appellate body for other tribunals with a public protection mandate.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference, asking that it be rescheduled to her spring break and held in person in Thunder Bay.

The Tribunal denied both requests, noting that the applicant failed to raise any specific prejudice requiring an in-person hearing for a summary proceeding.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Directions.

The respondent university requested an order to change the hearing venue from Windsor to Toronto and to bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the venue change, ordering the initial hearing dates to proceed in Windsor.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedial phases, noting the extensive remedies sought.

The Tribunal also granted the request to bifurcate the evidence, ordering that evidence concerning the decanal search be heard prior to evidence of systemic discrimination.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the applicant's standing to bring a complaint of systemic discrimination.

The College of Nurses of Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which refused to dismiss a human rights complaint filed by a nurse.

The nurse alleged discrimination based on disability after the College's Registration Committee imposed conditions on her certificates of registration.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had previously reviewed and upheld the conditions, finding they reasonably accommodated her disability while protecting the public.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code by failing to defer to HPARB's specialized public protection mandate and by improperly assessing the adequacy of HPARB's reasons rather than whether the substance of the complaint was appropriately dealt with.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal permitted the self-represented applicant to call additional medical witnesses provided she filed witness statements by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose relevant medical and psychological records to the personal respondent, finding that her claims for psychological harm and special damages made the records relevant, outweighing her privacy interests.

Confidentiality conditions were imposed on the disclosure.

Finally, the applicant was ordered to provide particulars regarding her claims for out-of-pocket expenses and other allegations.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion questioning the constitutional validity and application of section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as a costs order made by the application judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit.

The court held that the quantum of costs awarded was reasonable and that there was no error in awarding costs against a self-represented litigant.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring him to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's thorough reasons explaining the factual and legal grounds for the declaration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.