Faisal Bhabha

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The additional corporate respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to file a response within seven days, noting that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The personal respondent requested early dismissal of the application, citing his acquittal at trial on criminal charges arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal directed the other parties to provide submissions on the request for early dismissal within 15 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the late allegations but allowed one timely allegation to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and creed.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

Although the applicant initially consented, he later objected due to delays in the arbitration process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that the grievance involved identical allegations and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The corporate respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it had discriminated against the applicant by denying him employment based on his record of offences.

The respondent argued the Tribunal incorrectly applied the law of mitigation regarding lost wages.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent was essentially disagreeing with the factual findings rather than the legal principles applied, and that the applicant's efforts to mitigate were reasonable under the circumstances.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and sent an email the night before requesting to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal convened the hearing, noted the applicant's absence, and granted the respondents' request to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Mon Sheong respondents due to delay.

The applicant argued that her mental health issues prevented her from filing a timely application and submitted new medical evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier or raised at the initial hearing.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the medical evidence did not support her claim that she was incapable of filing an application, as she had concurrently engaged in proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant contracted with the respondent for roofing work and paid in advance, but the work was never completed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's failure to honour the contract was discriminatory based on the applicant's Romanian ancestry and status as a new Canadian.

The Tribunal found no direct evidence of discrimination and concluded that the mere possibility of discriminatory motivation was insufficient to establish a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address the respondent's requests for dismissal or deferral.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and attend scheduled hearings.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to defer his human rights application pending the completion of a parallel civil proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that a decision to defer is an exercise of discretionary power, is not determinative of the merits, and is not a final decision.

Therefore, it is not open to reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability against her former physician and solicitor, relating to events from 1976.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the 35-year delay.

The applicant argued she was unaware of her rights and misled about reopening her case.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in his treatment while in detention at Maplehurst Correctional Centre, specifically regarding disciplinary actions and solitary confinement for alleged misconduct.

The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the Superintendent's decisions in misconduct hearings are statutory decision-making functions and not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the Superintendent's function is overwhelmingly administrative rather than adjudicative, and therefore the misconduct decisions are 'services' within the meaning of the Code and are not immune from Code review.

The respondent's request for partial dismissal was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship and reprisal related to his incarceration in 1976-1977.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions explaining the 34-year delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for failing to allege discrimination on a prohibited ground.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include race instead of reprisal, citing new information from a co-worker.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate that the new information could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, as required by Rule 26.5.

The applicant, who had taken a medical leave for depression and anxiety, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding his return to work and subsequent termination.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondent employer failed to properly accommodate the applicant upon his return, unilaterally demoting him and reducing his pay based on assumptions about his mental health rather than legitimate business needs.

The Tribunal further held that the termination of the applicant's employment for refusing to sign a new contract with these discriminatory terms was a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay wage loss compensation, $15,000 for injury to dignity, and to undergo mandatory human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The applicant's former union requested to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to intervene, finding its involvement would not be helpful and could unnecessarily expand the scope of the hearing.

The respondents also requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing to determine the early dismissal request.

The respondent requested early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of government services, arguing the matter was previously settled and a release was signed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the current allegations cover the 2008-2009 year, which does not overlap with the period covered by the prior settlement.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed, limited to events occurring after July 18, 2008.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and reprisal.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and early dismissal of the reprisal allegations before filing its Response.

The applicant consented to providing particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, noting that its rules generally require a full Response before preliminary objections are heard, and ordered the respondent to file its Response within five days.

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

After adjourning a scheduled mediation, the applicant failed to provide alternative dates or respond to a direction from the Registrar to notify the Tribunal of his intentions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, that the applicant's representative was unlicensed, and that the personal respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine the issues of delay and the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code against Bell Canada and an individual.

The Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue, noting that the corporate respondent appeared to be federally regulated, and directed the parties to file submissions.

After the applicant failed to respond to the initial direction and a subsequent order warning that the application would be deemed abandoned, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to close the file.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.