Sharan Basran

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory decision finding that the employer engaged in prima facie discrimination by denying a creed-based exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of prematurity, as the arbitrator had bifurcated the hearing and had not yet determined whether the employer could accommodate the grievor without undue hardship.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against fragmenting ongoing administrative proceedings.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights application.

The corporate respondents were in receivership, and proceedings against them were stayed.

The applicant sought to proceed against the individual respondent, a director, and to add an employee as a party.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no compelling reason to add the employee and no basis to hold the individual respondent personally liable for the corporation's obligations under the settlement, absent evidence of fraud or deceit.

The applicant, a recovering crack cocaine addict, worked as a sales agent for the corporate respondent.

After inquiring about unpaid commissions, the personal respondent called the applicant a derogatory term related to his addiction.

The personal respondent subsequently sent emails to the applicant's co-worker and business contacts disclosing the applicant's addiction and falsely linking it to allegations of theft and physical threats.

The applicant resigned and later filed a human rights application.

Following the filing, the personal respondent uttered death threats against the applicant, resulting in criminal charges and a peace bond.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was an employee for the purposes of the Code and that the respondents discriminated against him, harassed him, created a poisoned work environment, and engaged in reprisal.

The respondents, who failed to attend the hearing, were ordered jointly and severally to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the corporate respondent was ordered to pay $4,524 for lost commissions.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application to add an allegation of reprisal, specifically that the individual respondent uttered death threats against him for filing the Application.

He also sought permission to file a late Reply.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the reprisal allegation flowed directly from the original discrimination claims and was timely, and that allowing the brief late Reply would facilitate an accessible process without prejudicing the respondents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by an Employment Standards officer (ESO).

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint constituted another proceeding, the ESO's decision lacked sufficient analysis and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application, particularly regarding the timing of the pregnancy disclosure and the reprisal allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

Two bartenders filed human rights applications against their employer, a veterans' club, and its directing officers.

The first applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after she took a medical leave for depression and diabetes.

The Tribunal found the respondents discriminated against her by demoting her, demanding she be symptom-free to return to work, publicly posting her confidential medical information, and laying her off.

The respondents also engaged in reprisal by demanding a meeting about unsubstantiated complaints and filing a false police report against her after she initiated human rights proceedings.

The second applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, sex (pregnancy), and association.

The Tribunal found the respondents failed to accommodate her back injury, reduced her hours due to her pregnancy, and suspended her and filed a false police report against her because of her association with the first applicant.

The Tribunal awarded significant monetary compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training and the implementation of a human rights policy.

The applicant, a technical support worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was pressured during a sick leave and subsequently terminated.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to the applicant's lack of credibility and alleged fraudulent conduct.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanations to be unsupported and pretextual.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the termination and other differential treatment, including requiring him to pay benefits premiums while on leave and demanding references post-probation.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $38,400 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an Admissions Representative, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated twice by the respondents.

The applicant had suffered a shoulder injury and experienced pain and anxiety, requiring time off work and modified duties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability under the Human Rights Code and that the respondents were aware of it.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability-related absences and the respondents' concerns about future absences were factors in the decisions to terminate his employment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $52,814.37 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to develop a human rights policy.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically and verbally abusing a combative client by slapping his thigh and swearing at him.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and remedial conditions.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $100 in costs for late notification of the case settlement under Rule 6 of the Discipline Committee Rules.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for falsifying records and submitting time sheets for home care visits she did not make.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for 60 days, practice conditions were imposed for 12 months, and she was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine or provide proof of full restitution to the agency.