Faisal Bhabha

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal nearly 20 months after her termination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the limitation period should start from when she discovered the alleged discriminatory reason for her termination during an Employment Standards Act meeting.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the facts giving rise to the alleged breach at the time of her discipline and termination, and that the discoverability doctrine does not exist to allow aggrieved persons to delay making a claim to gather evidence.

The application was dismissed as out of time with no good faith reason for the delay.

Following a finding that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his record of offences, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to prepare a remedy plan promoting future compliance.

The respondent submitted a plan including a hiring practices manual, staff training, and policy amendments.

The Tribunal reviewed the plan, found it met the required criteria, and ordered its adoption and implementation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing a recent hospitalization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical issue constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the matter to August 2011, instead directing the parties to provide available dates in February 2011 to avoid excessive delay and prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the second settlement instalment eight days late and providing an unsatisfactory apology letter.

The Tribunal found that while the late payment constituted a breach, the respondent had provided advance notice and fulfilled the payment shortly after.

The Tribunal concluded that the apology provided did not breach the settlement terms and that no harm arose from the brief payment delay to justify a remedial order under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint.

The respondent conceded it was four months late in modifying rooftop stairs and failed to provide timely written confirmation of other completed terms, but denied breaching the confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the agreement through these minor delays but dismissed the confidentiality claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for the adverse effect on his legitimate expectations and the feelings of being ignored, noting the breaches were not fundamental but still warranted a remedy.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision of services by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

She claimed the respondents failed to provide necessary information to help her manage estate inheritance payments without adversely impacting her benefits.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the statutory scheme and lack of information did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no allegation of differential treatment or adverse impact based on disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by her insurer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to establish a connection between the insurer's conduct and a prohibited ground under the Code.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to remedy general claims of unfairness in the delivery of services and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual solicitation.

The personal respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that his acquittal on criminal charges arising from the same facts appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The corporate respondent supported the request, arguing abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a criminal acquittal is not determinative of civil or human rights liability and does not bar a subsequent application on the same facts.

The respondent union sought reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request for early dismissal of the applicant's human rights complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 26.1, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

Because a decision under section 45.1 is an exercise of discretionary procedural power and not determinative of the merits, it is not a final decision and cannot be reconsidered.

The applicant filed an application alleging harassment on the basis of family status and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a parallel unlawful reprisal application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) dealing with identical allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the subject matter was substantially similar and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the OLRB has the power to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Following an interim decision that dismissed part of the application as untimely, the applicant was directed to provide particulars for the remaining allegations.

The applicant failed to file the required particulars by the deadline and did not respond to subsequent correspondence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated while on medical leave.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding that the arbitrator's awards focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient medical documentation and did not appropriately address whether the employer could have accommodated the applicant's disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant sought production of records relating to allegations of discrimination at a correctional facility.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondent to produce redacted inmate records, finding them arguably relevant to the application.

However, the Tribunal denied the production of workplace discrimination and grievance records involving staff, as the applicant failed to establish a nexus to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing into individual and systemic phases, concluding it would not be an efficient way to proceed.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, arguing under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code that the applicant had an ongoing civil claim for wrongful dismissal arising from the same events.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not explicitly or implicitly raise Code issues or seek Code remedies, and the application raised systemic issues not addressed in the civil action.

The request for early dismissal was denied, but the application was deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding on consent of both parties.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned workplace based on disability.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arose out of the same facts and allegations as the application.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The application related to events from 1976, but was not filed until 2010.

The applicant argued he did not receive the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and explained the delay was due to difficulties obtaining government documents and unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the respondent.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant did not receive the Notice, he failed to establish that the more than 30-year delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The request for reconsideration was refused.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had filed a parallel civil claim for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not raise the Code or seek remedies for discrimination.

As duplication of facts alone does not trigger section 34(11), the request for early dismissal was refused and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant alleged that the respondents reprised against her by failing to offer her employment after she disclosed a prior human rights complaint during a job interview.

The disclosure occurred when the applicant refused to sign a reference release form.

The Tribunal found that the subsequent two-month delay in processing her application was due to unintentional miscommunications and the unresponsiveness of her references, not a deliberate plan to deny her employment.

The Tribunal concluded there was no intent to reprise and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, amounted to an abuse of process, and improperly named one of the corporate respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to hear oral submissions on these preliminary issues, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.