Faisal Bhabha

The applicant, an independent insurance broker, alleged that he was sexually harassed, solicited, and discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and age by the principal of the respondent firm.

He further alleged that he was reprised against and dismissed for resisting these advances.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility and that he actively sought the sexual attention he claimed was harassment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, a warehouse manager and boom truck operator, alleged that his employment was terminated because of a disability following a workplace fall and subsequent WSIB claim.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a deteriorating relationship, the applicant's insubordination, and a culminating incident where the applicant yelled and swore at the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the dismissal was based entirely on non-Code related reasons, specifically the applicant's attitude, personality conflicts, and a threatening outburst.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file written closing arguments after missing the deadline due to counsel's error.

The applicant opposed the request, citing previous delays in the four-year-old proceeding.

The Tribunal granted a peremptory extension, finding that while delay is prejudicial, receiving the respondent's argument was in the Tribunal's interest and the delay at this stage was relatively minor.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, sex, and reprisal against his former university, hospital, and colleagues.

Following a preliminary hearing to determine if the applicant's documentary evidence established a prima facie case, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with procedural directions and submitted an 86-page document filled with argument, speculation, and inadmissible material.

The Tribunal admitted the evidentiary portions but concluded that the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination lacked necessary particulars and were based on unsupported inferences and personal hostility rather than prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a case for the respondents to meet.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing delays in a related court matter and counsel's busy schedule.

The request was made after the deadline to file statements of evidence had passed.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it was a deliberate delay tactic.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the respondent's failure to comply with the Tribunal's order and the late timing of the request.

The applicant, who suffers from mental health disabilities and diabetes, alleged that his former employer failed to accommodate his disabilities, disciplined him for disability-related issues, and subjected him to harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical information to trigger the specific accommodations he demanded, such as exemptions from call-in procedures and unauthorized toilet breaks.

The employer acted reasonably based on the limited information available and the applicant's lack of cooperation in the accommodation process.

The allegations of harassment and reprisal were also dismissed as the employer's disciplinary actions were found to be legitimate and not retaliatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application and a summary hearing was scheduled to determine if it had a reasonable prospect of success.

After multiple scheduling accommodations and extensions granted at the applicant's request, the applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had full notice and opportunity to prepare but failed to attend or request an adjournment.

The Tribunal advised the applicant of the process for filing a Request for Reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by court staff and a Crown prosecutor on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and family status, relating to the scheduling of his son's trial and the provision of disclosure.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege any facts that could establish a link between the alleged poor service and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

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

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for three weeks' pay.

The applicant argued he did not understand the release due to limited literacy and signed it under economic duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to review the release, understood its terms when he cashed the settlement cheque, and was not subjected to economic duress or coercion.

The Tribunal upheld the release and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for failing to make allegations that could lead to a finding of discrimination.

The applicant checked all four grounds for reconsideration and filed extensive handwritten submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and supplement it with further claims unconnected to the original application.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that granted the respondents an adjournment due to a medical emergency.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness and claimed the respondents misled the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that decisions to adjourn and applications of disclosure rules are discretionary, interim decisions, and therefore not final decisions subject to reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

She argued that the adjudicator's file was incomplete during the hearing due to a defective computer system, which seriously affected her case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any specific missing documents or demonstrate how the alleged administrative errors prejudiced her ability to advance her case.

The Tribunal concluded there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled to determine if her application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability should be dismissed.

The request was made due to a medical emergency, supported by documentation showing she was hospitalized.

The respondents took no position.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the medical issue amounted to exceptional circumstances.

The respondents requested an order compelling the self-represented applicant, who resides in Iran, to attend the hearing in person rather than by electronic means.

The respondents argued that in-person cross-examination was necessary for credibility assessments.

The applicant argued that his case relied primarily on documentary evidence and that travel costs and visa limitations posed significant hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, permitting the applicant to present his case-in-chief in writing and appear by teleconference for the initial stage of the hearing, finding no significant prejudice to the respondents at this stage.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After her counsel withdrew, the applicant failed to comply with disclosure obligations and lost contact with the Tribunal.

The applicant subsequently failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, emphasizing that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and attend scheduled hearings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The day before the hearing, the respondent City requested an adjournment due to a critical family medical emergency involving its legal counsel.

The applicant opposed the adjournment and also objected to the respondents' late filing of case law.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that a medical emergency is an exceptional circumstance, but made the rescheduled date peremptory on the respondents regarding representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's objection to the case law, finding it was filed within the required timeframe and caused no prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, 11 months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was unaware of his rights under the Code until advised by counsel.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant had counsel throughout the delay period and had already commenced a civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the Peel Regional Police, culminating in an incident where the Tactical and Rescue Unit entered his home.

The respondents requested deferral of the application because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding the same incident.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that concurrent proceedings dealing with substantially similar evidence should be avoided to prevent inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal and discrimination on several grounds.

The applicant later requested to amend the application to proceed only on the ground of disability, and to withdraw the application against certain respondents.

As the remaining respondents did not oppose the requests, the Tribunal granted the orders, striking the other grounds and removing the specified respondents from the proceeding.