Raj Kanwal Anand

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former union, several union representatives, and a lawyer retained by the union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and association, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the lawyer related to professional negligence rather than discrimination, and the allegations against the union respondents did not establish a link between their actions and any discriminatory factors.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed it.

The applicant, a resident of a co-operative apartment, filed a human rights application alleging harassment on the basis of being a 'single Caucasian woman' and reprisal.

She claimed that the respondents failed to address her complaints about a neighbour's loud music and colluded to have her charged with criminal harassment.

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

The applicant failed to allege facts linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground, and her noise complaints did not constitute claiming or enforcing rights under the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex during a university hiring process for a Dean position.

The individual respondent brought a request to be removed as a party, arguing the university was vicariously liable for his conduct.

Three organizations also brought requests to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to remove the individual respondent, finding his conduct was a central issue in the case.

The Tribunal also denied all three requests to intervene, finding the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate a significant interest or that they would provide assistance not otherwise provided by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, or facilities.

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

The applicant failed to attend the telephone conference hearing despite receiving notice.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed.

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

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three procedural requests in an application alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations predating September 15, 2008, as untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application and dismissed the personal respondent's request for the production of medical records as premature, noting that disclosure obligations arise only once a hearing is scheduled.

The appellant brought a motion on the day of the appeal, which the Court of Appeal dismissed for being brought too late.

The Court found no error in the two orders granted by the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 to each respondent.

The applicant, a law professor, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex after a search committee decided not to recommend her for the position of Dean following plagiarism allegations.

The respondent University brought a request for an order permitting it to use and disclose confidential search committee documents to prepare its Response, and to redact certain information.

The Tribunal granted the request to use and disclose the documents, finding it necessary for the University to file a full Response and beneficial for mediation.

However, the Tribunal found the request to redact and anonymize documents premature, as formal disclosure obligations would not arise unless mediation failed.

The complainant, a nurse with clinical depression and fibromyalgia, filed a human rights complaint alleging the College of Nurses of Ontario discriminated against her by placing conditions on her certificates of registration.

The College brought a request to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint, and that the complaint was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that HPARB failed to appropriately apply human rights principles, specifically the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship as set out in Meiorin, and failed to address the issue of adverse impact discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the College's arguments regarding adjudicative immunity, deliberative secrecy, collateral attack, and lack of jurisdiction, allowing the complaint to proceed on its merits.

The complainant, a Sikh security guard who wears a turban, was assigned to a Home Depot construction site.

The assistant store manager ordered him to wear a hard hat and, when the complainant refused due to his religious beliefs, ordered him to leave the premises.

The Tribunal found that the hard hat rule was selectively enforced against the complainant, as other workers were permitted in the same areas without hard hats.

The Tribunal also found that the assistant store manager subjected the complainant to discriminatory harassment by goading him to remove his turban and taunting him with termination.

The hearing was bifurcated, with the duty to accommodate and occupational health and safety issues deferred to a second stage.

The employee appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his misrepresentation claim against his former employer based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's conclusion that there may not have been a definitive decision to breach the contract until 2007 applied equally to the misrepresentation claim.

Therefore, the discoverability of the falsity of the recruitment representation was a triable issue.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in housing accommodation on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an earlier Interim Decision, seeking to introduce a Parking Agreement they inadvertently omitted, which they argued settled the accommodation issues.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, allowing the respondents to make oral submissions on the effect of the Parking Agreement at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to remove four personal respondents from the applications, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceedings against them as the corporate respondents assumed responsibility for their actions.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal a partial summary judgment order that refused to dismiss the plaintiff employee's breach of contract claim.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the motion judge erred in finding a triable issue regarding when the claim was discovered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision was entirely fact-based and did not involve matters of such importance that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4).

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in accommodation regarding condominium parking.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were barred because the applicant had previously commenced and then consented to dismiss a Small Claims Court action regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the Small Claims Court did not deal with the substance of the applications, the matter was not settled, and there was no abuse of process.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents.

The applicant, a union chief steward, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal by the respondents following a sexual harassment complaint against another union representative.

She sought an interim remedy under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to reinstate her use of a private office at the employer's premises, arguing it was necessary for her safety and to avoid contact with the alleged harasser.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her safety concerns were unsubstantiated and she had alternative locations to perform her union duties.

The applicants, children attending private faith-based schools, challenged Ontario's failure to provide them with special education benefits available in public schools.

They argued this exclusion violated their freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Adler v. Ontario foreclosed the freedom of religion claim.

The court also held that the challenged regulation, O. Reg. 386/99, which provides some health services to private school students, is an ameliorative program under s. 15(2) of the Charter and does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

A secondary claim seeking language therapy under the regulation was also dismissed, with the court finding a rational basis for the province's distinction between speech and language disorders.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested to intervene in the human rights complaint and sought to bifurcate the hearing.

The Proposed Intervener suggested that the first stage address the location of the complainant's duties without its participation, and if the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is engaged, it would participate in the second stage.

The complainant and the Commission consented to this approach.

The respondents consented to the intervention but argued the Proposed Intervener should participate throughout.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene and bifurcate the hearing, allowing the Proposed Intervener to participate only in the second stage if the interaction between the OHSA and the Human Rights Code needs to be addressed.

The applicants sought costs following a successful judicial review application.

The court reviewed the lengthy submissions and deducted amounts claimed for an initial, unsuccessful application brought before the Commercial Court.

The court also disallowed partial indemnity rate increases that exceeded the actual rates charged to the client.

Costs were fixed at $151,065.82, inclusive of fees, GST, and disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refuse to investigate his human rights complaint.

The Commission had determined that the complaint was more appropriately dealt with under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, as the applicant had previously grieved his dismissal and reached a settlement through his union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable because the applicant had access to an arbitration procedure capable of adjudicating human rights issues and had already reached a settlement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed the Commission to hear evidence from alleged victims of historical sexual abuse.

The applicant argued that hearing such evidence would convert the inquiry into a substitute police investigation and exceed its mandate by requiring findings of civil or criminal responsibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner clearly understood his mandate to assess the institutional response rather than determine individual liability, and that he appropriately balanced the need for the evidence against the applicant's reputational interests.

The appellant, who was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and later had his conviction quashed after fresh DNA evidence was admitted, sued his trial lawyer for negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no 'egregious errors' and no evidence of causation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proper standard of care for a lawyer conducting litigation is reasonableness, not 'egregious error'.

The Court also found that the 'but for' causation analysis raised a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the appellant would have been acquitted had the lawyer obtained the DNA evidence and properly conducted the trial.

The respondent's cross-appeal alleging abuse of process was dismissed.